Insolvency, Sovereignty and Spectrum: Locating IBC Within Constitutional Order

Beyond a Sectoral DisputeThe Supreme Court's recent decision in State Bank of India v. Union of India [2026 Livelaw (SC) 152] will inevitably be described as a telecom ruling. It is more than that. At its heart lies a question that goes to the architecture of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): when a corporate debtor enters the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), what is the juridical character of the rights it holds, and which of those rights constitute part of the...

IBC | Defunct Scheme Of Arrangement Under Companies Act Cannot Stall Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 24) held that a defunct Scheme of Arrangement under the Companies Act cannot stall the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the NCLAT's decision, which had kept in abeyance the CIRP initiated under Section 7 of IBC against...

Fixed-Term Appointments Made Through Due Process Are Not “Backdoor Entries”: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the regularisation policy of Fixed Tenure Appointees in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, holding that appointments made through a transparent and competitive process could not be characterised as “backdoor entries” merely because they were initially for a fixed term.A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and...

Benami Act Attachment During CIRP Can't Be Challenged Before NCLT/NCLAT : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today upheld an NCLAT judgment that held that attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Benami Act) can be challenged only before authorities provided under that Act and not before the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar dismissed an appeal against NCLAT judgment...

CCI v. Swapan Dey: Who Decides Exclusivity Or Exclusion?

When does the exercise of patent rights become an antitrust violation? The apex court is now poised to answer a question that remains at the intersection of “innovation in a healthy competitive market” and “market regulation.” Recently, in Competition Commission of India v. Swapan Dey & Another,[1] the Supreme Court (SC) has stepped into a core jurisdictional conflict to determine whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the chief national antitrust regulator in India, can...

Law Without Remedy: Unpaid Salaries In India's Online Work Economy

Salary theft in India's IT and online operational sector is no longer an exception. It has become a business model quiet, procedural, and legally sanitised.In India's fast-growing IT and online services ecosystem, non-payment of salary has become a disturbingly common experience. Employees are not just terminated; they are financially strangled. Performance bonuses are withheld without explanation, salaries for the last three to six months are stopped, and the employee is pushed into silence...

The Silent Capture Of Generic Terms

Indian trademark law insists that generic and descriptive terms must remain in the public domain, yet in practice, resource‑rich proprietors often succeed in fencing off such words through private litigation. In the absence of an institutional guardian of public interest, courts may, case by case, end up reinforcing monopolies over everyday language that the statute itself never intended to privatise. It is necessary that India now needs a dedicated public‑interest authority or structured...

Telecom Spectrum Community Resource, IBC Can't Determine Its Ownership & Control : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today held that the ownership and control of telecom spectrum cannot be determined by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), since it is a common good. A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul Chandurkar held that the spectrum is a material resource of the community in the Constitutional sense. Hence, the spectrum must benefit the common good, so its control...

Rights Issues In India: Law, Process And Practical Concerns

Rights issue is virtually one of the most common methods used by the companies to raise more cash. Instead of approaching new investors, companies issue new shares to existing shareholders in proportion to their holdings, usually at a discounted price. This is to protect the owners against dilution of their stakes and also provide the company with a boost to its finances. In India, the entire thing is governed by the Companies Act, 2013 and in the case of listed companies there is a dosage of...

Understanding Secondment Under The GST Regime In India

In recent years, several Indian subsidiaries of multinational corporations have received show cause notices (SCNs) from GST authorities seeking to levy tax on salaries paid to employees seconded from foreign group entities. These notices, typically issued under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM), proceed on the premise that secondment arrangements amount to a supply of manpower services by...

Non-Borrowers Can Approach DRT If Affected By SARFAESI Action, Writ Not Maintainable: Rajasthan High Court

While rejecting the writ petition filed by a flat purchaser which was declared a secured asset, the Rajasthan High Court held that even if a person was not a borrower or a guarantor, s/he was entitled to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) if their rights were affected by the notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, and they were “aggrieved person”.The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal...

Party Who Accepted S.11 Order For Arbitrator Appointment Can't Later Question Validity Of Arbitration Clause Under Pre-2015 Regime: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 4) reiterated that under the pre-2015 amendment regime, once a party consents to a court order appointing an arbitrator, they cannot subsequently challenge the existence or validity of the arbitration clause before the arbitral tribunal or in proceedings under Section 34. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard an...