Insights

In a significant judgment concerning compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that a person does not lose the status of a legal representative merely because he or she is not financially dependent upon the deceased. In Sameem Begum and Others v. K. Venkat Swamy and Another, decided on 14 August 2026, the Supreme Court examined the relationship between the concepts of legal representation, financial dependency and consortium in motor accident compensation claims. The Court held that legal representatives are entitled to maintain a claim for compensation even in the absence of actual financial dependency. The extent of dependency may have a bearing upon the quantum of compensation under particular heads, but it does not extinguish the right to maintain the claim.

The rapid expansion of India's digital commerce ecosystem has fundamentally transformed the manner in which businesses market, sell and distribute goods and services. E-commerce enterprises now operate across a complex regulatory landscape involving consumer protection, taxation, data privacy, intellectual property, advertising standards, payment systems, foreign investment, competition law and sector-specific regulations. The scale and speed of online transactions have consequently made regulatory compliance a critical component of sustainable digital business operations.

In today's knowledge-driven economy, intellectual property ("IP") has become one of the most significant sources of enterprise value. Businesses increasingly derive their competitive advantage from trademarks, patents, copyrights, designs, software, proprietary technologies, domain names, trade secrets and other intangible assets. For technology companies, pharmaceutical enterprises, manufacturing businesses, consumer brands, startups and multinational corporations, intellectual property frequently represents a substantial component of the organisation's overall commercial valuation. However, ownership of intellectual property alone does not guarantee effective protection or commercial value. Businesses may possess valuable IP assets without maintaining accurate ownership records, timely registrations, appropriate licensing arrangements or adequate enforcement mechanisms. Unregistered rights, expired registrations, defective assignments, unauthorised use, inadequate contractual protections and undisclosed third-party claims can significantly diminish the value of an IP portfolio.

The Supreme Court of India has delivered an important ruling strengthening the regulatory framework governing insider trading under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015. The Court has held that where a person is in possession of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) and trades in securities during the period when such information remains unpublished, the regulatory framework raises a presumption that the trade was motivated by the UPSI. In a significant departure from arguments based on the purpose or motive behind a transaction, the Court clarified that the reason for undertaking the trade, the use of the sale proceeds, or the extent of profit or loss avoided is not relevant to determining whether insider trading has occurred under the 2015 Regulations.

In today's increasingly competitive corporate environment, businesses frequently operate through multiple shareholders whose commercial interests, investment objectives and expectations may differ significantly. While a company's constitutional documents establish the fundamental framework of corporate administration, a carefully structured Shareholders' Agreement ("SHA") provides a more comprehensive contractual mechanism for regulating the relationship between shareholders, protecting investment interests and establishing clear procedures for resolving disagreements. Shareholder disputes commonly arise from disagreements concerning management control, appointment of directors, transfer of shares, dilution of ownership, dividend distribution, additional capital requirements, related-party transactions, exit rights, succession and strategic decision-making. Where these matters have not been clearly addressed at the inception of the investment relationship, disagreements can rapidly escalate into oppression and mismanagement proceedings, contractual litigation, arbitration and valuation disputes.

The Supreme Court of India has taken another significant step towards strengthening India's commercial dispute-resolution infrastructure by seeking updated, nationwide data on the volume and growth of commercial litigation. The Court is examining whether the existing number of Commercial Courts, Commercial Appellate Benches and related infrastructure is sufficient to deal with the country's commercial litigation burden, or whether additional courts and benches are required. The proceedings arise from a long-pending petition filed by the Indian Commercial and Arbitration Bar Association (ICABA) seeking effective and time-bound implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petition raises concerns regarding inadequate judicial infrastructure, insufficient Commercial Courts and Appellate Benches, and delays in resolving commercial disputes.

In today's increasingly complex corporate environment, financial misconduct can be concealed through sophisticated accounting structures, layered transactions, related-party arrangements, digital manipulation and falsification of corporate records. Corporate fraud may involve diversion of funds, misappropriation of assets, fraudulent financial reporting, procurement irregularities, fictitious transactions, bribery, money laundering and manipulation of books of accounts. As businesses become increasingly dependent upon digital financial systems and interconnected commercial networks, conventional financial audits alone may not always be sufficient to identify the nature, extent and consequences of suspected misconduct.

The Allahabad High Court has held that appearance through Video Conferencing (VC) is not a fundamental or absolute right of a litigant, but a facility intended to provide convenience and expedite adjudication, the use of which remains subject to the discretion of the Court. In a significant judgment concerning the conduct of a petitioner-in-person, a Bench comprising Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that where a Court specifically directs a litigant to appear physically, the direction must ordinarily be complied with and cannot be avoided merely by asserting a preference for virtual appearance.

In today's increasingly competitive business landscape, acquisitions have become one of the most effective strategies for achieving market expansion, technological advancement, operational integration and long-term commercial growth. Businesses frequently pursue acquisitions to strengthen market presence, diversify product portfolios, acquire strategic assets, access intellectual property, expand into new jurisdictions or consolidate operations. However, while acquisitions present significant commercial opportunities, they also expose acquiring entities to substantial regulatory, financial and legal risks. Failure to identify and manage these risks at the pre-transaction stage can result in regulatory investigations, contractual disputes, financial liabilities, post-closing litigation and significant erosion of transaction value.

The Bombay High Court's judgment in State of Goa v. Tarun Tejpal marks one of the most significant developments in India's criminal jurisprudence on sexual offences. In a landmark decision delivered on 6 August 2026, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court overturned the 2021 acquittal of former Tehelka Editor-in-Chief Tarun Tejpal, convicted him for rape, and delivered an exhaustive judgment that fundamentally challenges long-standing stereotypes surrounding the conduct of survivors of sexual assault.