India

DMD Advocates advised Matching Pants Private Limited, a company engaged in designing, manufacturing, and retailing of ready-made garments and related merchandise under the brand name “Philocaly”, on an equity investment by FEF Global Private Limited. FEF, an initiative of the India Fashion Awards, operates as a venture studio supporting high-potential consumer brands. The investment transaction was pursuant to the Jio-Hotstar live-action series “Pitch to Get Rich”. DMD Advocates was involved in drafting, negotiating, and finalizing the transaction documents. The transaction was led by Tarinee Sudan (Partner), along with Srishti Pandey (Associate).

ANM Global has recently announced the onboarding of Mr. Varunraj Limaye and Dr. Venkatesh Seshan, as Partners in its Intellectual Property practice, particularly in the area of Patents and Designs. Both partners, along with a multi disciplinary team, will deepen the firm’s Patents practice and expertise, which continues to evolve under the leadership of Rahul Dhote. Varunraj Limaye comes with over 15 years of experience across domestic and international patent landscapes, with a body of work spanning chemistry, pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, devices, materials science, food technologies, batteries, nanotechnology, and more. As a registered Patent Attorney, his journey reflects someone who has spent a career translating complex science into enforceable IP assets. Before joining ANM Global, he led the Mumbai office of K&S Partners, building enduring client relationships and supervising high-stakes patent prosecution and litigation matters. Dr. Venkatesh Seshan, with a PhD from Delft University of Technology and prior experience at both K&S Partners and European firm NLO, brings a distinct engineering depth. His work is rooted in the frontier of semiconductors, computers/software, telecom (4G, 5G, ORAN), electronics, AI/ML, IoT, nanotechnology, and emerging digital technologies. He has guided global corporations and early-stage innovators alike, often stepping in at the earliest stages of invention to shape patent strategy that stands up to scrutiny across jurisdictions. He has transformed several path breaking/complex innovations into IP assets for global conglomerates. Reflecting the firm’s strategic direction, Nidhish Mehrotra, Managing Partner, shared, “The trajectories of both our new Partners mirror where ANM Global is headed into deeper technology, wider geographies, and more complex mandates, specifically in the area of Patents & Designs. Their presence strengthens our domestic and international capabilities. We are delighted to have them join us at a time when the Patent landscape is evolving faster than ever. For ANM Global, this addition is not merely an expansion of headcount; it is a meaningful step in strengthening its domestic footprint and international presence, particularly in technology-intensive sectors where the demand for sophisticated IP strategy continues to rise.” On their appointment, Dr. Venkatesh Seshan and Varunraj Limaye jointly stated, “ANM Global has an incredible momentum right now. What drew us in was the firm’s clarity of vision to build a Patent practice that is rigorous, collaborative, and genuinely invested in innovation. We are looking forward to shaping meaningful patent strategies for clients across India and international markets.” About ANM Global ANM Global is a full-service law firm known for its contemporary approach, sectoral depth, and solutions-led advisory model. With a strong and growing Intellectual Property practice, the firm continues to advise global businesses, high-growth enterprises, technology innovators, and research-driven institutions.

The Indian system of recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments and arbitral awards is constituted by Sections 13-14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908[1], as far as judgments are concerned, and Sections 44-52 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (A&C) Act, 1996[2], as far as awards under the New York Convention are concerned.  India has a well-developed legal framework, but it is fraught with many challenges, among them being the problem of jurisdiction fragmentation, rigidity of reciprocity, and loose interpretation of public policy, which culminate in the unpredictability and ineffectiveness of cross-border dispute resolution. The Dual Framework: Reciprocity and Recognition The two-tier reciprocity-based enforcement system still exists in India. Only 13 territories are given notice of recognition of foreign judgments, as opposed to approximately 50 territories of foreign arbitral awards. The newest territory to receive notification of the award is Mauritius in 2015; a ten-year hiatus shows sluggishness in administration. This asymmetry creates serious barriers: where judgements given by non-reciprocating territories require new suits, with the foreign judgement merely evidence, judgements given by reciprocating territories are simply enforced under Section 44A (CPC).[3] According to section 13 (CPC), the judgement made in foreign countries cannot be challenged unless one of the six things occurs: (i) the court lacks the right to hear the case; (ii) the judgement is not made on the merits of the case; (iii) the misuse of international law; (iv) the breach of natural justice; (v) fraud; or (vi) contravention of Indian law.[4] Section 14 is based on the assumption that the court is permitted to make a decision, but the mentioned exceptions make judging creditors more difficult and less predictable.[5] The need to have reciprocity, discretionary government business that does not have a fixed deadline or any specific requirement, makes it extremely difficult to transform India into a reliable settlement business when it comes to international disputes. Public Policy and the Jurisprudential Evolution In the case known as Renusagar Power v. General Electric (1993), the Supreme Court, in its landmark decision, defined public policy very strictly, believing that such a policy could be implemented only when it was against the basic interests of India, justice, or morality.[6] This was recognized internationally as a good example and went along with the simple approach of the New York Convention. But ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) altered this line of thinking. ONGC appealed against an arbitral award in a bid to reestablish substantive merit review and argued that it was shocking to the conscience and patently illegal.[7] The Court adopted a wider perspective of the public policy, which could be intervened in terms of illegality. This was altogether contrary to the pro-enforcement bias of the Convention. To prevent destabilisation, the Supreme Court in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. v. National Highways Authority (2019) reiterated the narrow Renusagar meaning of the foreign awards in Section 48(2)(b). The Court indicated that the omission of patent illegality (since the 2015 Amendment to provide it where domestic arbitration is awarded pursuant to Section 34(2A) was accidental to ensure that India remained a good venue to conduct arbitration.[8]  The difference remains a legal issue, yet it demonstrates that the lawmakers still intended to refer to the law when creating the New York Convention in the law. The 2019 ruling in Vijay Karia v. Prysmian developed the theory believing that the technical breach of the foreign exchange laws does not necessarily mean that the enforcement cannot be made unless they are directly contradictory to the core policy.[9] Judges have taken a more advanced pro-enforcement position as it is evident in their recognition that international business transactions cannot be avoided. Recognition of Foreign Judgments in Family Law The most appropriate example of the conflicts between the philosophy of reciprocity and the constitutional right to personal law is marital disputes. The personal law system, which is based on Articles 25-28 of the Constitution, is what complicates the process of recognizing divorce and custody orders made in other countries in India. Foreign divorce decrees that satisfy the requirements that are set under Section 13 are generally recognizable as decided by the Supreme Court.[10] Ex parte decrees, however, have their own problems, especially in instances where the respondents had not been approached or surrendered to jurisdiction. Indian courts may deny recognition in custody cases in cases where they believe that it would not be in the best interest of the child according to Indian standards. Despite the safeguarding role of this judicially developed override, it poses an uncertainty to the NRI parties that seek foreign contracts. Jurisdictional issues have only worsened because of the rise in NRI suits; Indian courts are presently claiming matrimonial jurisdiction where both parties are outside the country, with the principles of domicile or solemnization of a marriage as the arguments.[11] Emerging Issues Concurrent Jurisdiction and Conflicting Judgments: Section 10 (CPC) permits the concomitant action in Indian and foreign courts.[12] Though the Indian courts have the right in principle to stay proceedings using the doctrine of forum non conveniens, they rarely do so and demand evidence of either grave injustice or oppressive circumstances. This high threshold enables the existence of parallel proceedings, and it may consequently escalate the cost of litigation. Evidentiary Verification Challenges: The e-commerce, cyber-torts, and international e-data transfer issues challenge the traditional notions of jurisdiction in the digital era. Section 14 with the presumption of competence, is not enough to determine the existence of digital notices being in the due process or the existence of online behaviour in creating a jurisdictional contact. Owing to the lack of a defined procedure for assessing the validity of digital evidence, Indian jurisprudence is vulnerable to false allegations. Non-Reciprocating Territories: In the Government of India v. Vedanta Limited (2020), the court established a 3-year statute of limitations to invoke enforcement petitions under Article 137 of the Limitations Act.[13] It is not exactly known when the accrual will take place; however, where awards are offered by remote arbitrators, or in a foreign language, or where secrecy conditions are added. The jurisprudential evolution of the requirement of a sufficient cause of delay condonation has not emerged yet. Patent Illegality Asymmetry: The 2015 Amendment, which deliberately leaves out the enforcement of foreign awards (Section 48) and introduces the illegality of patent domestic awards (Section 34(2A)), leads to the incoherence of its doctrines.[14] This difference may frustrate the intention by India to become a regional arbitration center because it will prompt it to manipulate the forums and deter any foreign party from choosing India as the arbitration venue. Constitutional Dimensions and Sovereignty The Indian Constitution adds complexity to the matter. The implementation of a foreign judgment can come into conflict with the declaration of the Fundamental Rights enforceable against the State under Part III (Articles 12-35).[15] Foreign judgments so disobedient to constitutional protectors as discrimination or infringement of freedom may be rejected on section 13(f) or public policy grounds.  The point at which constitutionalism and recognition become one, exactly, however, is not well understood. It has not been determined how to calculate whether the enforcement of foreign judgments constitutes a significant enough violation of the Constitution to justify non-recognition.  The extraterritorial application of Indian regulatory standards by foreign judgments also raises sovereignty concerns.  It remains ambiguous whether the distinction between lawful disputes and unlawful extraterritorialization is crossed, even with the ruling of the Vijay Karia case in favour of global commercial efficacy and not rigid regulatory protection.[16] Comparative Perspectives Comparative analysis indicates that India is rather weak in comparison to others. All three, UK, Singapore, and the US, are presumptively pro-enforcement regimes that have very limited grounds of refusal and significantly restricted appellate review.[17] Significantly, such jurisdictions have come to be known as well for foreseeable and light-touch types of jurisprudence, and have aimed to host international dispute resolution business. The reciprocity requirement of India, the frequent expansionism of the Indian public policy in the face of retrenchment, and the fragmentation of the jurisdictions provide an environment that is perceived to be less predictable than that of the peer jurisdictions.[18] This has a massive implication on the Indian effort to embrace international dispute resolution and the enforcement of Indian judgments across borders. Recommendations for Reform Legislative Reforms: (i) Specify methods to be followed in notifying of any additional reciprocating territories; (ii) A uniform code of Principles of Private International Law must be enacted.[19] (iii) Provide definitions of levels of public policy tiers, one of constitutional principle, which may not be recognized and enforced, and another of regulatory norm, where enforcement will proceed. (iv) Cross-border expertise in special commercial courts. Judicial Reforms: (i) Consolidate fragmented jurisprudence on forum non conveniens and issue preclusion. (ii) Develop standardized digital evidence protocols. (iii) Establish principled constitutional dialogue regarding fundamental rights' intersection with recognition. International Engagement: India ought to have ratified the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, 2005[20], and engaging in international harmonization of instruments would bring it to the par with the international best practice. Indicatively, cross-border enforceability would be greatly enhanced by expanding huge portions of reciprocating territories with large trading partners-such as the United States. Conclusion The system that regulates the enforcement of foreign judgments and awards in India is not only doctrinally sophisticated but also largely inefficient. Principled tests as laid down by the basic enabling statutes and Supreme Court jurisprudence, i.e., Renusagar and Ssangyong, are highly in line with the international best practice. Predictability and efficiency are sucked out by reciprocity rigidity, constitutional grey areas, concurrency, and technological issues. As a regional arbitration center, India rationally requires systematic reforms in the spheres of legislative clarity, perfection by the judicial body, institutional facilities, and international institutions relations. In the course of such reforms, it is possible to maintain constitutional safeguards and internal legal autonomy in India, and this will help it to become more competitive within the world commercial dispute resolution environment and make a positive contribution to enhancing cross-border commercial confidence. [1] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, §§ 13–14 (India). [2] Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, §§ 44–52 (India). [3] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 44A (India). [4] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 13 (India). [5] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 13 (India). [6] Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co., (1994) Supp. (1) SCC 644 (India). [7] Oil & Nat. Gas Corp. Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 (India). [8] Ssangyong Eng’g & Constr. Co. Ltd. v. Nat’l Highways Auth. of India, (2019) 15 SCC 131 (India). [9] Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi SRL, (2020) 11 SCC 1 (India). [10] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 13 (India). [11] Satya v. Teja Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 120 (India). [12] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 10 (India). [13] Gov’t of India v. Vedanta Ltd., (2020) 10 SCC 1 (India). [14] Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, §§ 34(2A) & § 48 (India). [15] India Const. arts. 12–28. [16] Vijay Karia, (2020) 11 SCC 1. [17] Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 482 (Am. L. Inst. 1987); Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (U.K.). [18] Saw Pipes, (2003) 5 SCC 705. [19] See generally Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3d ed. 2021). [20] Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, June 30, 2005, 44 I.L.M. 1294. Author: Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh Chauhan, Partner

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was enacted in 2016 to unify India’s fragmented insolvency framework to ensure a time-bound Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”). The jurisprudence of the Code since its enactment has been continuously evolving through frequent landmark judgments and regulatory amendment to address the procedural bottlenecks and lacunas in the practical application of the Code. The Lok Sabha on 12 August 2025 introduced the, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Amendment Bill, 2025 (“Bill”), which is the most comprehensive and substantial reform proposed since the enactment of the Code in 2016. KEY AMENDMENTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS Stricter Enforcement of Statutory Timelines and Removal for Judicial Discretion The Bill casts an obligation upon the Adjudicating Authority to dispose of applications under section 7,9 and 10 of the Code within 14 days failing which reasons for delay are to be recorded in writing. The amended sections mandate admission once (a) the default is established, (b) the application is complete, and (c) no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the proposed Resolution Professional. The judicial discretion of the Adjudicating Authority recognized in “Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd”[1] has also been neutralised and dispensed with. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (Section 10 of the Code) In the case of voluntary application for insolvency under section 10 of the IBC, the Corporate Debtors right to proposes an Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) has been removed. The amendments enhances transparency and prevents the backdoor entry of erstwhile promoters or management. Upon admission of the Section 10, Application under the Code, the Adjudicating Authority will seek IBBI’s recommendation for an IRP. Restricted Withdrawal (Section 12A of the Code) Stricter compliances for withdrawal of CIRP applications have been proposed, which would permit withdrawal only after CoC has been constituted, there is a 90% vote of the COC in favour of the withdrawal, and the withdrawal is permitted only up till the first call for resolution plans. Further the Adjudicating Authority would also be required to dispose of such applications within 30 days. Enhanced Supervisory Role of CoC (Section 21) The CoC would be empowered to supervise the liquidation process conducted by the liquidator under Chapter III thereby strengthening creditor oversight. Transfer of assets of Guarantor of Corporate Debtor during process (Section 28A of the Code) Proposes amendment to section 28A of the Code permits Creditors of the Corporate Debtor who have taken possession of guarantors to transfer/sell such assets, and proceeds will form part of the CIRP or liquidation estate. Where the guarantor is also under CIRP/Liquidation or personal insolvency, the COC of the Guarantor must also grant approval (except during liquidation where approval is not needed if the creditor has not relinquished the asset under Section 52.) The sale proceeds shall form part of the corporate insolvency resolution process or the liquidation estate of the Corporate Guarantor Mandatory Minimum Amount for Dissenting Creditors (Section 30) Dissenting financial creditors shall receive an amount not less than the liquidation value or what they would receive under the plan if proceeds were distributed, whichever is lower, as determined under Section 53. This protects dissenting creditors while reinforcing the collective decision-making authority of the CoC, thereby reducing instances of strategic dissent and litigation over payout disputes. Opportunity to Rectify Defects: Two-Stage Approval of Resolution Plan (Section 31 of the Code) The Bill, introduces a proviso to Section 31(1)(a), to establish a dual approval process for the resolution plan. The Adjudicating Authority will (a)first approve the resolution plan for implementation and management of the corporate debtor, enabling it to resume operations as a going concern and (b) lastly within 30 days, a second order will be passed approving the distribution of proceeds to creditors. By separating implementation from distribution, the amendment facilitates quicker revival of the corporate debtor, preserves business value and employment, and minimizes delays and disputes over creditor payouts thereby ensuring a more efficient and timely resolution process. Further, the bill proposes that Adjudicating Authority may before rejecting a Plan, give notice to the CoC to rectify such defects. Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transactions (Sections 43–49) The look-back period for identifying preferential, undervalued, and extortionate transactions, has been revised to two years or one year from the date of filing, instead of from the date of admission, and to include the period during which a CIRP application is pending. The Bill further empowers creditors to initiate action where the Resolution Professional or Liquidator has failed to take action and the proceedings may continue even after the completion of CIRP, liquidation, or dissolution. Stricter Timelines The Bill mandates stricter timelines with the requirement that the Adjudicating Authority record its reasons for delay in concluding the following: Withdrawal of CIRP: within 30 days Liquidation/Dissolution orders: within 30 days Challenge to CIRP initiation: within 30 days Withdrawal of liquidation: within 14 days Other Key Changes Expanded definition of service provider to include all IBBI-regulated entities. • Extended moratorium under Section 14 to the liquidation stage. • Stricter penalties for frivolous litigation. • Government dues clarified as unsecured under Section 53. • Liquidation to be completed within 180 days, extendable by 90; voluntary liquidation capped at one year. • Interim Moratorium under Sections 96 & 124 not applicable for personal guarantors during resolution and bankruptcy. New Concepts Introduced Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Resolution Process (CIIRP) (Sections 58A–58K) The Bill introduces CIIRP for specified corporate debtors and financial creditors. The process may be initiated jointly by notified financial creditors having a 51% voting consent, after notice to the corporate debtor for 30 days. If uncontested, CIIRP starts with a public announcement. The Board of Directors remains in control under the supervision of the IRP/RP. Moratorium may be sought if approved by 51% creditors. CIIRP shall be completed within 150 days, extendable by 45 days. Failure or non-cooperation may lead to conversion into regular CIRP. Group Insolvency Framework (Section 59A) The Bill introduces the concept of coordinated resolution of multiple interconnected group companies belonging to the same corporate 'group' by allowing joint creditor committees, a common insolvency professional, and joint hearings before a single bench. This prevents duplication and maximizes recovery. Cross-Border Insolvency Framework The Bill introduces a globally aligned cross-border framework that will provide for recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings, cooperation between Indian and foreign courts, and coordinated resolution of multinational group insolvencies, thereby enhancing investor confidence. III. Concerns and Challenges Litigation Risks under CIIRP CIIRP, despite its aim of avoiding delay, may result in litigation regarding default verification, creditor documentation, and oversight. In the absence of detailed rules, this can become highly contentious. Rigidity in Withdrawal Rules Limiting withdrawal to post-CoC stage may discourage early settlements, undermining the Code’s objective of negotiated resolution where disputes can be resolved without formal proceedings. Uncertainty in Two-Stage Approval of Resolution Plant The second stage of approval of Resolution Plant for distribution may lead to fresh rounds of litigation, regulatory delays, and prolonged recovery especially for operational creditors. Mandatory Admission of Sections 7 & 9 Applications May Incentivise Malicious Filings Compulsory admission upon proof of default eliminates judicial discretion and, therefore, may motivate creditors to utilize insolvency for debt recovery purposes. Ambitious Timelines and Capacity Issues The proposed timelines of 14 days for admission and 180 days for liquidation may not be feasible due to the prevalent backlog with the Adjudicating Authority and shortage of qualified insolvency professionals. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 is a significant step toward a faster and more transparent, and globally aligned insolvency regime. By introducing CIIRP, group insolvency, and cross-border frameworks, it modernizes the Code and reinforces creditor empowerment. However, effective implementation will require detailed rules, institutional strengthening, and calibrated judicial oversight to prevent misuse and ensure that the reforms achieve their intended impact. [1] 2022 SCC OnLine SC 841