The NCLT Mumbai has held that claims based on liquidated or unliquidated damages arising from contractual breaches cannot be used to initiate insolvency proceedings.

Dismissing Goodrich Logistics’ Section 9 plea against Transrail Lighting, the Tribunal said such damages must first be adjudicated by a civil court or arbitral tribunal.

It found that detention charges and depreciated value of unreturned containers were not part of the original service order and constituted contractual damages outside the Code’s summary jurisdiction.

The Bench also noted pre-existing disputes and Goodrich’s failure to provide supporting records.

Holding that no crystallised operational debt existed, the application was rejected.

The Supreme Court stayed a Kerala High Court order directing EY India Chairman Rajiv Memani and Byju’s Resolution Professional Shailendra Ajmera to appear in a contempt case linked to the attempted sale of Byju’s US subsidiaries.

The Bench asked how contempt could survive when the injunction allegedly violated was in force only between May 21 and May 27, before the Supreme Court varied it.

The Court noted that any breach had to fall within that limited period.

The High Court proceedings arose from a plea alleging violation of orders passed in an ongoing commercial dispute over the assets of Epic and Tangible Play.

[Sunil Thomas v. Voizzit Technology]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that when a defect is noticed within the warranty period, both the authorised dealer and the manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.

The case arose after a buyer of an SX‑4 car reported persistent vibration in first and reverse gears, which the dealer failed to fix despite repeated attempts.

The Court affirmed a refund or replacement order in favour of the buyer‑complainant, as the defect arose during the warranty period.

The ruling underscores that warranty obligations extend to both dealer and manufacturer and cannot be evaded by shifting blame.

[Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Mohammad Ashraf Khan]

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has banned finfluencer Avadhut Sathe from the securities market and impounded ₹546.16 crore of unlawful gains.

SEBI found that Sathe was providing unregistered investment advisory services disguised as stock market education. Many participants who acted on his instructions suffered financial losses, while Sathe reportedly gained unlawfully.

The order underscores that investment advisory services must be registered under SEBI regulations, and issuing market tips for profit without authorization is prohibited.

This action sends a strong warning against unregistered advisory activities in the growing fintech and social media finance sector.

The Delhi High Court has held that virtual legal services rendered from Singapore by Clifford Chance cannot be taxed in India under the India–Singapore DTAA. 

The Bench ruled that the treaty does not recognise a “virtual service PE”, and taxation requires a physical presence or employees rendering services within India.

The Court also accepted that only 44 days involved actual client work, well below the 90-day threshold for a service PE, after excluding vacation, business development, and non-service days shown in detailed records.

Finding no nexus for taxation, the Court dismissed both appeals filed by the Income Tax Department

[Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation v. Clifford Chance Pte Ltd]

The Kerala High Court has held that the Competition Act can apply even in regulated sectors, and that the existence of a sectoral regulator does not automatically bar the Competition Commission of India (CCI) from examining alleged anti-competitive conduct.

The judgment came in a challenge by Jio Platforms against a CCI probe into Star India’s alleged abuse of dominance in the broadcasting market.

The court dismissed the plea, stating that sectoral regulators like TRAI and the CCI have distinct roles, and the existence of a specialized regulator does not oust the CCI's jurisdiction.

This reinforces that competition scrutiny may still operate alongside sectoral regulation, ensuring broader oversight of market conduct.

[JioStar v. Competition Commission of India]

The Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction sought by Novo Nordisk, allowing Dr Reddy’s Laboratories to manufacture and export its version of the GLP-1 drug containing semaglutide.

The Court observed that Dr Reddy’s raised a credible challenge to Novo Nordisk’s patent claims, noting that the company had obtained two patents for minor variants of the same compound, amounting to “evergreening.”

The Court held that the species-specific patent was already claimed under a broader genus patent, and Novo Nordisk’s actions artificially extended its monopoly.

Dr Reddy’s is permitted to continue manufacturing the drug for export while the validity of the patent is examined.

[Novo Nordisk v. Dr Reddy’s Laboratories]

The Kerala High Court has dismissed JioStars' appeal challenging a Competition Commission of India (CCI) probe into alleged discriminatory discount practices by the telecom loyalty program.

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal after finding no ground to interfere with the single judge's decision. The bench did not immediately pass any order on JioStar's request.

The court upheld the regulator's authority to investigate whether the platform offered preferential treatment to select partners, potentially harming market competition.

On the main contentions, the Court directed the CCI to proceed on the basis of Director General's report and provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders.

[Jiostar India Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India]

The Delhi High Court held that disputes arising from employment agreements cannot be treated as commercial disputes under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Court observed that clauses such as confidentiality, non-compete, or intellectual property obligations do not transform an employment contract, fundamentally a personal service agreement, into a commercial arrangement.

It noted that allegations relating to breach of fiduciary duties, misuse of confidential information, statutory non-compliance, salary revisions, and post-resignation conduct arise from personal service obligations. 

The Court held that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts and dismissed the plea seeking rejection of the plaint.

[ARM Digital Media Pvt Ltd v. Ritesh Singh]

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, held that the pendency of a cheque-bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act does not bar the initiation of insolvency proceedings.

The Tribunal admitted an application by Rexel India Private Limited to commence the corporate insolvency resolution process against Proto D Industries Private Limited.

The NCLT observed that the existence of a civil or criminal dispute relating to debt does not prevent the creditor from approaching the insolvency forum, provided default is established.

The ruling reaffirms that insolvency proceedings can proceed concurrently with other pending legal actions.

[Rexel India Pvt Ltd v. Proto D Industries Pvt Ltd]

The Centre has amended the Patents Rules, 2003, through the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025, effective November 25, 2025.

The overhaul replaces Chapter XIV A – Adjudication of Penalties and Appeals, introduced in 2024, and introduces procedural changes while retaining the overall structure.

A key change stipulates that the appeal period for patent penalty orders will now commence from the receipt of the order, rather than the date of the order, providing patentees adequate time to respond.

The amendments aim to streamline the penalty adjudication mechanism and enhance procedural clarity in patent enforcement and compliance matters.

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with SEBI’s ₹30 lakh penalty against Reliance Industries’ compliance officers for allegedly delayed disclosure of the 2020 Facebook–Jio investment.

The dispute imposed by SEBI on June 20, 2022, cited violations of Principle 4 of Schedule A under the PIT Regulations.

The Court held that SEBI and the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s findings involved factual issues and did not raise any substantial question of law.

[Reliance Industries Limited v. SEBI]

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs notified the Companies (Specification of Definition Details) Amendment Rules, 2025, revising the eligibility criteria for small companies.

The notification (G.S.R. 880(E), dated 1 December 2025) raised the paid-up capital limit to ₹10 crore and the turnover limit to ₹100 crore, both of which must be satisfied simultaneously.

The amendment aims to widen the category of small companies and reduce compliance burdens. Small companies can now file simpler returns, hold fewer board meetings, avoid mandatory dematerialisation under Rule 9B, and benefit from relaxed governance and audit requirements.

The revised rules take effect from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

The Union government introduced two Bills in Parliament to replace revenue from the soon-to-be-discontinued GST compensation cess on tobacco products.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman tabled the Health Security & National Security Cess Bill, 2025, and the Central Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

The excise amendment allows higher duties on tobacco to maintain tax incidence, while the Health Security Cess levies a cess on machines and processes used in pan masala manufacture, augmenting funds for health and national security. 

The Bills respond to GST cess repayment obligations and aim to protect revenue streams while ensuring fiscal stability.