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.

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.

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.

Anti-competitive agreements are a significant area of concern under Indian competition law, governed by the Competition Act, of 2002. These agreements, which have the potential to harm the competitive process and consumer welfare, are strictly regulated by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

The legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means no party should suffer due to the act of the court, is a fundamental prerequisite of a fair judicial process.

The Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur (supra) went on to declare Section 309 IPC as constitutional. The Court held that the right to live with human dignity cannot be construed to include within its ambit the right to terminate natural life, at least before the commencement of the process of certain natural death.

Ancestral Property: If the property has been passed down through generations without being divided, the grandson has a right to claim his share as a coparcener under Hindu law. Self-Acquired Property: If the grandfather’s property is self-acquired, the grandson generally does not have an automatic right.

Remote work offers several advantages such as increased flexibility in working hours, reduced commuting time and expenses, improved work-life balance, access to a global talent pool, and a higher level of job satisfaction among employees.

Possession for fit-out basis is a term that has gained significant traction in the real estate sector, particularly in burgeoning urban areas like Noida. This concept allows property buyers to take early possession.

In India, similar to other jurisdictions, unregistered trademark owners also have certain rights under common law to protect their enregistered marks.