The Commercial Laws Roundup August 2026 brings together the month’s most significant developments across India’s commercial law landscape. This edition features important judgments from the Supreme Court, High Courts, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), and Foreign Courts on insolvency, arbitration, lifting corporate veil and commercial procedure of pre-institution mediation.
In addition to the latest judicial pronouncements, the roundup includes Regulatory Updates, Law Firm News, Expert Corner, Interviews and OP. Eds., offering readers a comprehensive overview of the legal, regulatory, and industry developments that shaped commercial law during August 2026.
CASE BRIEFS
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
SUPREME COURT | Pre-deposit conditions in Arbitration can’t make right to sue “illusory or nugatory”; SC doubts S.K. Jain; Larger Bench to decide
In an appeal while examining the validity of a contractual clause requiring a contractor to deposit 10 per cent of the claim amount as a precondition for invoking arbitration, the Division Bench of Manoj Misra and Manmohan*, JJ., expressed doubts about the continuing authority of S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana, (2009) 4 SCC 357, holding that a pre-deposit condition cannot make the right to sue “illusory or nugatory”. The Court referred the issue to a larger Bench for determination. [Santosh Associate (P) Ltd. v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1584] Read More HERE
Also Read: Arbitration Clause Does Not Bar Consumer Forum Jurisdiction: SC
DELHI HIGH COURT | Failure to mutually appoint sole arbitrator within a reasonable time justifies court’s intervention u/S 11(6) despite absence of express refusal: Delhi HC
In a petition filed under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), seeking appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising between the parties in relation to the partnership deed dated 1 September 2016 and a connected petition instituted under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim protection in relation to the collateral security furnished by the partnership firm, the Single Judge Bench of Om Prakash Shukla, J., allowed the Section 11(6) petition and appointed Justice (Retd.) Ravindra Bhatt as Sole Arbitrator, holding that in light of parties’ prior Section 9 proceedings, failed mediation and earlier attempts to secure a mutually agreed appointment, the agreed appointment procedure under Clause 14 had failed. [Sugat Jain v. Amit Jain, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6467] Read More HERE
COMMERCIAL PROCEDURE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Delay alone doesn’t defeat urgent interim relief: Bombay HC restores suit rejected under Section 12-A Commercial Courts Act
In a commercial first appeal challenging an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), for non-compliance with Section 12-A(1), Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Commercial Courts Act), the Division Bench of R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash*, JJ., held that the trial court had adopted an unduly restrictive approach in determining whether the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief. The Court held that while pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act is mandatory, a suit which genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief falls within the statutory exception. The Court accordingly set aside the order rejecting the plaint and restored the commercial suit. [High Point Supply Co. LLC v. Agati Healthcare (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 9115] Read More HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | New Suit, New Mediation: Calcutta HC Reaffirms Mandatory Section 12A Compliance Under the Commercial Courts Act
The Single Judge Bench of Aniruddha Roy, J. rejected a commercial suit seeking enforcement of a negative covenant in a family agreement as the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act). The Court highlighted that the statutory pre-institution mediation is an indispensable condition precedent for instituting an independent commercial suit. [Ramji Lal Agarwal v. Sourav Agarwal, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 10218] Read More HERE
INSIDER TRADING
SUPREME COURT | Purpose of the trade is irrelevant once UPSI possession and trading are established: SC
In an appeal filed under Section 15-Z, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 19921 (SEBI Act) challenging the judgment and order dated 19 April 2022 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (SAT), whereby the SAT, while allowing the said appeal, quashed and set aside the order dated 24 May 2021 passed by the whole-time member (WTM), SEBI holding the respondents guilty of insider trading under the SEBI Act, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., set aside the SAT’s order holding that where an insider trades in securities while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI), Regulation 4(1), SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (2015 PIT Regulations) creates a presumption that the trade was motivated by the UPSI. Once possession of UPSI and trading during its currency are established, the reasons for undertaking the trade or the purposes to which the sale proceeds are applied are not relevant for determining insider trading. [SEBI v. Rajeev Vasant Sheth, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1539] Read More HERE
Also Read: Expanding the Net: The New Scope of “Connected Person” in Insider Trading
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY
SUPREME COURT | Can High Court entertain Writ Petition against NCLT Order when IBC provides Appeal? SC answers
In an appeal challenging the Kerala High Court’s order entertaining a writ petition against an National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order passed during liquidation proceedings, the Division Bench of Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., held that where an NCLT order passed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is appealable under Section 61, the High Court should ordinarily refrain from entertaining a writ petition challenging that order and direct the aggrieved party to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. [Davis Koottala Varkey v. Samson T. George, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1560] Read More HERE
Also Read: NCLAT rejects condonation of 1-day delay beyond statutory period under Section 61(2) IBC
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI | NCLT Allows Withdrawal of unadmitted company petition against SpiceJet but declines to record settlement; Imposes ₹15 Lakh costs
The present interlocutory application, New IA/3976/2026, was filed by Aviator ML 29641 Ltd. (operational creditor) under Rule 11 read with Rule 11(2) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (‘NCLT Rules, 2016’), seeking liberty to withdraw C.P. IB-674/ND/2024 (company petition) filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against SpiceJet Limited (corporate debtor). The Bench of Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Technical Member), permitted withdrawal of the company petition under Rule 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (2016 Rules). However, it declined to take the parties settlement agreement on record, as the request for withdrawal had been made at a belated stage of the proceeding. It directed payment of costs of Rs. 15,00,000/-, shared equally between the parties, as a condition for the withdrawal to take effect. [Aviator ML 29641, Ltd. v. Spicejet Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine NCLT 4551] Read More HERE
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA | ₹10.46 Crore in Claims, ₹1.55 Crore Recovered: NCLT Kolkata approves SIS Mohan Real Estate Resolution Plan
In a case wherein, Interlocutory Application was filed by Resolution Professional (RP) seeking direction for final approval of resolution plan, the Division Bench of Labh Singh (Judicial Member) and Rekha Kantilal Shah (Technical Member)* approved the Total Resolution Plan and held that the applicant complied with requirement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Further emphasised that “Commercial Wisdom of CoC” was to be given paramount status. [Tatanagar Financial Services Ltd. v. SIS Mohan Real Estate Private Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine NCLT 4257] Read More HERE
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
ZAMBIA SUPREME COURT | Can the Corporate Veil be pierced to enforce an Arbitral Award? Zambia SC answers
In an appeal arising from attempts to enforce an arbitral award, the bench comprising M. Musonda, Deputy Chief Justice, A.M. Wood, and N.K. Mutuna, JJ., examined whether the Court may pierce the corporate veil of a judgment-debtor company and hold its shareholders, directors and officers liable for sums awarded in arbitration. The Court held that an arbitral award, even after registration for enforcement purposes, remains final and binding upon the parties to the arbitration and persons claiming through or under them. The Court emphasized that judicial intervention in arbitration is limited by statute, and the enforcement proceedings cannot be used to impose liability upon non-parties. Since piercing the corporate veil is not a recognised means of executing an arbitral award and constitutes a separate cause of action, the Court dismissed the present appeal. [Star Drilling & Exploration Ltd. v. National Technologies Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine ZMSC 1] Read More HERE
Also Read: Power to Lift the Corporate Veil during Execution of Arbitral Awards
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | How a Phone is actually priced or purchased: AP HC on why Screen Size isn’t “Relevant” for Legal Metrology Disclosure
In a writ petition filed by Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, challenging the order holding them liable for violation of Sections 18 and 36, Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (LM Act) and Rules 4 and 6(1)(f), Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011, (LM Rules) for not declaring the size or dimensions of the screen of mobile phones on the packaging, a Single Judge Bench of Subba Reddy Satti, J., set aside the impugned orders, holding that the obligation to declare the dimensions under Section 18, Rules 4 and 6(1)(f) is not an absolute statutory requirement and it arises only where the size of the commodity is relevant and only in respect of commodities where size is the metric, or one of the principal metrics, by reference to which the commodity is transacted in trade. [Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd. v. State of A.P., 2026 SCC OnLine AP 2709] Read More HERE
SARFAESI ACT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Writ remedy not maintainable where efficacious DRT remedy available against sale of mortgaged property: Bombay HC
In a writ petition challenging the proposed sale of the subject property by the respondent-Bank and seeking to interdict the respondent-Bank from proceeding with the sale on the basis of provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Division Bench of Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ., held that the petitioner had an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The Court observed that the petitioner had admittedly already taken recourse to the said statutory remedy while challenging the first sale notice and that the proceeding was still pending. The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition. [Ravijyot Finance and Leasing (P) Ltd. v. Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 9570] Read More HERE
Also Read: Bom HC: No urgent relief against property auction under SARFAESI Act
LEGISLATION UPDATES
A New Framework for Tribunals: Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026 comes into force
On 25 August 2026, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the commencement of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026, bringing all provisions of the legislation into force with effect from the same date. Introduced during the Monsoon Session of Parliament 2026, the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026 received the President’s assent on 13 August 2026, paving the way for a new framework aimed at improving the efficiency, independence, transparency and uniformity of tribunals in India. Read More HERE
Centre Establishes Mediation Council of India Under Mediation Act, 2023
On 27 August 2026, the Ministry of Law and Justice issued a notification establishing the Mediation Council of India under the provisions of the Mediation Act, 2023. Read More HERE
REGULATORY UPDATES
394 Entities, 36 Professionals: CBDT launches Nationwide Verification of Suspicious Foreign Remittances
On 18 August 2026, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) announced that the Income Tax Department had undertaken a nationwide verification exercise into suspicious foreign remittances identified through data analytics and ground intelligence. According to the CBDT, the findings emerged during a search operation on a group of fictitious charitable trusts allegedly involved in providing accommodation entries against bogus donations and contributions. The investigation uncovered a network of entities engaged in remitting funds abroad under questionable circumstances. Read More HERE
TReDS Now Mandatory: What the MSMED Amendment Act, 2026 actually changes for MSME Payments
On 13 August 2026, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (Amendment) Act, 2026 received Presidential assent, introducing significant changes to the MSME regulatory framework. The amendments provide for mandatory routing of certain MSME receivable settlements through the Trade Receivables Discounting System (TReDS), tighter timelines for dispute resolution, stronger enforcement of awards and revised penalties. Read More HERE
RBI Keeps Repo Rate Unchanged at 5.25%; Retains Neutral Stance
On 5 August 2026, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) released the Monetary Policy Statement following the 62nd meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) held from 3 to 5 August 2026 under the chairmanship of RBI Governor Mr. Sanjay Malhotra. The decision follows the Committee’s assessment of evolving domestic and global macroeconomic and financial conditions. Read More HERE
No Charges on UPI Payments: Government Clarifies What the PSS Act Amendment Really Means
On 8 August 2026, the Ministry of Finance clarified that UPI users will continue to make payments without any transaction charges, despite the proposed amendment to Section 10A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 through the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The Government stated that the amendment is intended to support the long-term growth, sustainability and security of India’s digital payments ecosystem. Read More HERE
LAW FIRM NEWS
-
CAM advises Elevation Capital V Limited, SAIF III Mauritius Company Ltd. and SAIF Partners India IV Ltd. on block sale of equity shares of One97 Communications Ltd.
-
CAM advises Larsen & Toubro Ltd. on proposed scheme of amalgamation amongst L&T and L&T Power Development Ltd. and their respective shareholders under Sections 230 to 232 of Companies Act, 2013
-
CAM acts advises The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America on divestment of its entire stake in Guardian India Operations Pvt. Ltd. to HCL Technologies Ltd.
-
CAM acts as legal counsel to The Indian Hotels Company on the merger of its associate company, Oriental Hotels with and into IHCL by way of a Scheme of Arrangement
-
Clarvis Legal LLP Expands Legal Footprint with Offices in New Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Morgan Stanley on sale of shares of Shadowfax Technologies by Eight Roads Investments
Read more HERE
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Warburg Pincus LLC on the sale of its shares in IndiaFirst Life Insurance Company Ltd. to BNP Paribas Cardif
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Cube Highways Trust on India’s first conversion of a privately listed InvIT into a publicly listed InvIT
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas acts as the Indian legal counsel to LEAP India Limited on its IPO
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Adani Energy Solutions Ltd. on its INR 3500 Crore QIP
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Shiprocket and Individual Selling Shareholders on the Company’s INR 16,174.85 Million IPO
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas acts as Indian legal counsel to Manipal Health Enterprises Limited on its IPO
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Cornerstone Ventures Enterprise Tech Fund II on its investment in Groyyo Private Ltd.
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas represents Medicover on its € 1.2 billion sale of 100% stake in Sahrudaya Health Care Private Ltd. to KKR
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Saints & Masters Private Ltd. on its strategic buyout of Xencia, a Cloud Solution Provider
-
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises SBI Funds Management Limited on its IPO
-
Fox & Mandal advises Century Plyboards on the launch of its ‘Total Cover’ warranty initiative featuring Aamir Khan
-
Prashaant Vikram Rajput joins Fox & Mandal as Partner — Capital Markets in Mumbai
-
Khaitan & Co Advises India Resurgence Fund on Acquisition of Majority Stake in Fine Edge Engineering
-
S&R Associates advises Mahanagar Gas Ltd. on concession agreement for 350 TPD compressed biogas plant in Mumbai
-
S&R Associates Advises Gaja Alternative Asset Management on ₹550 Crore IPO
-
S&R Associates Advises Equirus Capital and Motilal Oswal on Lohia Corp’s ₹11.01 Billion IPO
-
S&R Associates advises UltraTech Cement on INR 50 billion listed NCD issuance through private placement
-
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advises Bain Capital on ₹30,668.85 million IPO of Dhoot Transmission Ltd.
-
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advises Union Bank of India on USD 600 million Senior Unsecured Notes issuance through its Dubai International Financial Centre Branch
-
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advises Book Running Lead Managers on USD169 million IPO of Shiprocket
-
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advises lead investors on US$120 million primary investment in River Mobility
-
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. represents High Point Supply Company LLC before Bombay HC in S. 12-A Commercial Courts Act matter
-
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advises Juniper Green Energy Ltd. on its ₹18,000.00 million IPO
-
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advises on Cube Highways Trust’s conversion into a publicly listed InvIT and its ₹50,000 million IPO
-
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co Strengthens its International Arbitration Practice with the Appointment of Shaneen Parikh as Partner in Mumbai
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read More HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
EXPERTS CORNER
-
Before Adverse Action — The Legal Shield Around Preliminary Investigations
-
Transnational Issue Estoppel in Foreign Award Enforcement in India
by Iram Hassan and Yukti Agarwal
Read more HERE
-
“Say Yes to Work No One Else Wants”: In Conversation with Praneesh Goyal on Corporate Law, Cross- Border Structuring and Building a firm from scratch
-
Success Follows those Who Live with Purpose, Discipline, and Self-Evaluation: In Conversation with Mr Rajesh Narain Gupta, Founder and Chairman at SNG & Partners
-
In Conversation with Dr. Navin G. Ahuja: Inside Mediation, Arbitration, and the Realities of International Disputes
-
The Art of Strategic Policy Translation: In Conversation with Tamanna Bansal
-
Growing with the Profession: Mr Dhruv Malik’s Perspective on Competition, Arbitration and Insolvency Disputes
-
Transnational Ecocide and Corporate Impunity: Insights from the Niger Delta Oil Contamination Crisis
by Kiyah Dhorda
-
What is the Meaning of “Undertaking” and “Substantially the Whole Undertaking” under the Companies Act?
by Makarand Joshi
by Sara Sundaram and Nikunj Agarwal
Read More HERE
INTERVIEWS
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
Read more HERE
OP. ED.
Read more HERE
Read more HERE