Blogs

The recent Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling from November 2024 on the appointment of a sole arbitrator is an important clarification in Indian arbitration law. It particularly addresses issues of party autonomy, fair treatment, and arbitrator independence. This much-anticipated decision reviews and combines several earlier rulings, aiming to resolve whether a party to an arbitration agreement—especially one with a vested interest—can unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or limit the other party’s choices through a selected panel.

International arbitration has become a cornerstone of cross-border dispute resolution, offering a neutral and efficient alternative to litigation. Within this framework, ad hoc arbitration stands out for its flexibility and autonomy. Unlike institutional arbitration—conducted under the supervision of bodies such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) or the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)—ad hoc arbitration allows parties to determine procedural rules, select arbitrators, and structure proceedings without institutional oversight. While this independence has clear advantages, it also presents significant challenges regarding enforcement, efficiency, and procedural certainty.

The most controversial provision of India’s corporate insolvency legislation is Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. It has largely been in the limelight since it discusses granting protection to companies against being prosecuted for crimes committed prior to the initiation of the insolvency process. The concept is that when a new management comes in and a revival plan is sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the company is supposed to have a “clean slate” so that it may begin anew. But this protection has put numerous questions with regards to how to balance the need for company revival with the need for accountability for historic crimes.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, is designed to strengthen India’s insolvency framework by formally addressing the complexities of corporate groups. It fills a critical gap exposed when several related firms collapsed together but had to undergo isolated insolvency proceedings. The Bill enables the government to frame rules for joint hearings, shared professionals, and consolidated creditor committees—seeking greater efficiency while ensuring creditors’ interests remain protected.

The growing application of generative AI has sent jitters and raised questions across most areas, and one significant one is law. Of the legal principles impacted, two are distinctly evident: legal privilege and the discovery process. Generative AI is technologies used to generate new content, data, or even make decisions based on learned patterns from vast amounts of information. Individuals are employing AI in order to prepare documents, generate reports, and even make recommendations that mimic expert advice. While these machines are quick and efficient, they also generate uncertainty regarding whether AI generated material can be covered by legal privilege and how it should be included in a case’s discovery process.

Contracts are the building blocks of business. They set out how people or companies will work together, what each side promises to do, and what happens if things go wrong. Because contracts decide rights and responsibilities, it is very important that they are written clearly and carefully. A well-drafted contract avoids confusion, prevents disputes, and protects everyone involved. This article explains, in simple terms, the key points to keep in mind while drafting a contract.

Operational creditors under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) are the ones who supply goods or services to the corporate debtor in exchange for operational debt. As per Section 5(20) of IBC, an “operational creditor” means a person to whom an operational debt is owed. Section 5(21) of IBC defines “operational debt” as

“a claim for the provision of goods or services, including employment, or a debt for the repayment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government, or a local authority.”

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was introduced in 2016 which primarily aims at the resolution of corporate insolvency of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals. The IBC framework is intended to facilitate the financially distressed corporate debtor and not as a mere recovery mechanism for creditors. Accordingly, proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) are resolution centred and not recovery centred.

One of the major financial commitments is buying your own home. Unfortunately, in todays’ time, many homebuyers are facing situations where the Builders are unable to complete their Projects on time due to any reason whatsoever, and ends up into insolvency, leaving the homebuyers anxious about losing their investments. If you are also amongst such homebuyers, who are distressed by such a situation and are searching for the right path to get a resolution, you are at the right place.

Before delving into the concept of oppression and mismanagement, it is necessary to begin with the judicial origin that shaped and laid down its foundational principles by emphasizing the significance of a company’s separate legal identity and the proper plaintiff rule. It provided a simple yet powerful principle of majority and minority shareholders’ right.

Buying a home is often the biggest investment a family makes. It comes with hopes of security, stability and appreciation in value. But for many buyers across the country, this dream has been tested by long delays, mounting demands, and changing terms by the builders, backed by the arbitrary and one-sided clauses, stealthy incorporated in the Agreement. A recent judgement judgment of the Supreme Court brings this issue into sharp focus and sends an important message on fairness in builder–buyer relationships.

RERA has been a game changer for homebuyers in India. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) has made home buying less intimidating by prioritizing home buyers. Before enactment of the RERA, the real estate sector was largely unregulated, unfettered, leaving homebuyers with little protection. The RERA was introduced to bring transparency, accountability, and timely possession to the homebuyers.

The future is virtual — but the legal consequences are real.
At Centrik, we explore the evolving techno-legal landscape and decode the challenges of law beyond physical boundaries.

Purchasing a home is one of the biggest decisions of our lives. Whether it is your first flat or an investment property, the excitement of booking a property often overshadows the legal due diligence that must be a priority in today’s time. Unfortunately, that’s where many of us make mistakes, which prove to be costly.

Transfer pricing is the actual price charged in a transaction between related entities forming part of the same Multi-National Enterprises (MNEs). Since the tax rates vary from country to country, transfer pricing becomes a method to reduce the tax liability of the MNE as a whole. It involves setting up of transfer prices in such a manner that lesser profits are booked in countries with higher tax rates.