The Bombay High Court has clarified that the partners of a Limited Liability Partnership firm cannot be held personally liable under an arbitral award.

The decision came in an appeal where an LLP was ordered to pay ₹88 lakh of unpaid dues to a company by an arbitral tribunal.

The Court held that the tribunal had erred in fastening joint and several liability on the designated partners of the firm and struck down this portion of the award.

Additionally, it was also held that arbitrators need not be lawyers and that their decisions cannot be taken lightly merely because their reasoning is not like that of a trained legal mind.

[Proteus Ventures LLP v Archilab Designs]

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the Chinese company SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation, upholding the Orissa High Court’s decision to set aside a ₹995 crore arbitral award granted in its favour against GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd.

A Bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih held that the tribunal overstepped its mandate by reinterpreting contractual terms and treating a 2012 email as a waiver of notice, contrary to the agreement’s “No Oral Modification” clause.

The Court ruled that the tribunal overstepped its mandate, violating Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and affirmed that arbitral awards must strictly follow contractual stipulations.

[Sepco Electric Power Construction v GMR Kamalanga Energy]

The Telangana High Court has clarified the distinction between "specified value" and "pecuniary value" under the Commercial Courts Act 2015, noting the former focuses on the commercial dispute's core while the latter determines a court's pecuniary jurisdiction. 

A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gidi Praveen Kumar dismissed a civil revision petition and held that the base threshold for specified value is ₹3 lakh post the 2018 amendment.

The Court rejected arguments that Telangana required a separate notification.

[M/s Janset Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.]

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) accused WhatsApp of abusing its dominant position by removing users' option to opt out of cross-platform data sharing in its 2021 privacy policy update.

Senior advocate Balbir Singh argued before the NCLAT that Meta’s integration of WhatsApp with Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger locks users into its ecosystem, making switching difficult despite alternatives like Telegram or Signal.

The CCI imposed a ₹213.14 crore penalty, finding the policy forced users to comply without real choice and constituted exploitative abuse.

WhatsApp and Meta challenged the order, citing a lack of user surveys or evidence. The NCLAT stayed the data-sharing ban for five years but upheld part of the penalty.

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld JSW Steel’s ₹19,700-crore resolution plan for debt-ridden Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL), dismissing objections from ex-promoters and creditors.

A bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai, with Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, had reserved the verdict on August 11. The Court noted, “We do not find any merit in the appeals.”

The ruling comes after the Court recalled its earlier May 2 order directing liquidation of BPSL, which had criticised the conduct of the CoC, resolution professional, and NCLT.

[Kalyani Transco v. M/S Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd]

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has reserved its judgment on WhatsApp’s appeal against the ₹213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for alleged anti-competitive practices linked to its 2021 privacy policy.

During the hearings, WhatsApp argued that the CCI exceeded its jurisdiction, while the regulator maintained that the policy exploited the platform’s dominant position by forcing users to share data with parent company Meta.

The tribunal will now decide on the legality of the competition watchdog’s action.

[Meta, WhatsApp v. CCI]

The Delhi High Court has held that arbitral tribunals, including those seated abroad, may direct share transfers in joint venture companies if such relief flows from a shareholders’ agreement. 

Justice Prathiba M. Singh clarified that granting such remedies does not encroach upon the jurisdiction of company law tribunals, as it pertains to enforcing private contractual rights.

The judgment arose from a dispute between Roger Shashoua and Mukesh Sharma under a 1998 shareholders’ agreement. 

The Court affirmed that an arbitral tribunal deriving authority from the shareholders’ agreement is competent to order share transfers as part of contractual remedies.

[Roger Shashoua Vs Mukesh Sharma]

The Supreme Court has dismissed a criminal case against an individual against whom an FIR was filed in a civil dispute, making it seem like a criminal case.

The Court expressed significant distress regarding the trend of using criminal prosecution as a means of harassment in civil or commercial disputes.

The Court held that even if the allegations are assumed to be true, they cannot be tried under criminal law. Further, it was said that criminal law cannot be misused to settle civil disputes or wreak vengeance.

The case stemmed from a commercial dispute where the defending party advanced a partial loan to the complainant to execute a property sale and issue cheques that later bounced.

[Ankul Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.]

The Delhi High Court has directed Ambuja Cements and JSW Cement to resolve their trademark dispute through its Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

Ambuja alleged that JSW’s new “Jal Kavach” cement infringes its registered trademark “Ambuja Kawach,” claiming the names are phonetically, visually, and conceptually similar, causing consumer confusion.

Ambuja filed the suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, citing trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and brand dilution.

The Court directed both parties to complete pleadings quickly and try mediation, with the next hearing on October 15, 2025.

[Ambuja Cements Ltd. v JSW Cement Ltd.]

 

The Supreme Court has clarified that a public notice issued by a bank under the SARFAESI Act extinguishes the borrower’s right to redeem the secured asset under Section 13(8) once the notice period expires.

The court emphasised that publication of the notice marks the cutoff point for repayment and restoration of possession, preventing indefinite delays in recovery proceedings.

The Court noted that the Security of Enforcement Rules provided for different modes of notice for different modes of sale- whether by public auction, tender, or private treaty.

[M. Rajendran & Ors. v M/S KPK Oils & Protiens India Pvt. Ltd & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court has held that a dispute between a passenger and an airline over the refund of a flight ticket does not qualify as a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The court ruled that a passenger purchasing a ticket is a consumer, and the transaction is not a commercial activity in the nature of trade or commerce between merchants.

Therefore, such consumer disputes cannot be transferred to a commercial court. The court, while setting aside a commercial court's order that had assumed jurisdiction over a refund claim, directed the matter to be heard by a consumer forum instead.

[Chand Mehra & Anr. British Airways PLC]

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) told the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that WhatsApp misused its market dominance by imposing its 2021 privacy policy in a “take it or leave it” manner.

It argued that users had no real choice and were compelled to share their data with Facebook (Meta). The CCI added that privacy is an integral part of competition law, not just data protection.

By leveraging its dominant position, WhatsApp allegedly forced users into accepting terms that undermined their autonomy, thereby violating competition rules.

The CCI imposed a ₹213.14 crore penalty on Meta, finding that the 2021 privacy policy update imposed unfair conditions and forced data sharing; that order was later stayed by NCLAT.

[Meta INC, WhatsApp v. CCI]

The Supreme Court has asked the government to bring "finality" to ongoing issue of Vodafone Idea's (Vi) adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues.

The court was hearing a fresh petition from the company challenging an additional demand of ₹9,450 crore from the Department of Telecommunications.

A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai was told by the Solicitor General that the government is now a significant stakeholder in the company, holding a 49% equity. 

Vodafone Idea argues that new demand goes beyond the scope of an earlier ruling and contains computational errors. The court has deferred the hearing to September 26 to allow a resolution to be found.

The Delhi High Court has held that details of internal investigations conducted by SEBI are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The ruling came in a case where an appellant, after alleging irregular share allocation to related parties, sought information on SEBI’s insider trading probe.

SEBI had declined the request, arguing that sharing such information could compromise the investigation process.

Upholding this stance, the court ruled that probe details cannot be disclosed while inquiries are ongoing, reinforcing the principle that transparency must not undermine regulatory investigations.

[Srishti Rustagi v. SEBI]