GILS Dispute Resolution: India (2026)
CASE №1:
Shashank Agarwal, Bhavya Khatreja, Sahil Sharma, Abhishek Taneja, Surya Pratap Sirohi
Rushant Malhotra & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
High Court of Delhi | W.P.(C) 7998/2025 | Decision dated 29 October 2025
Our team represented Law Researchers engaged with judges of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a writ petition concerning the implementation of an administrative decision enhancing their remuneration from ₹65,000 to ₹80,000 per month. The enhancement had been approved by the Chief Justice and the Administrative Committee of the High Court with effect from 1 October 2022 and forwarded to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Delhi Government) for formal approval.
Although the Delhi Government accepted the enhancement in principle, it approved the increase only prospectively from 2 September 2025, declining to grant arrears from the earlier date recommended by the High Court. The dispute raised important constitutional questions regarding the administrative autonomy of High Courts under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the extent of executive involvement in matters relating to the service conditions of court staff.
The Delhi High Court held that decisions concerning the service conditions of High Court staff fall within the administrative domain of the Chief Justice and should ordinarily be respected by the executive unless compelling reasons exist. Finding no justification for the delay, the Court directed that the enhanced remuneration be implemented with effect from 1 October 2022 and ordered the Delhi Government to release the arrears accordingly.
Firm’s Role: Our team advised and represented the Petitioners throughout the proceedings, presenting constitutional and administrative law arguments concerning judicial autonomy and the implementation of High Court administrative decisions.
Impact: The decision reinforces the constitutional principle of judicial independence and clarifies the limited scope of executive interference in administrative decisions of High Courts.
CASE №2:
Shashank Agarwal, Abhishek Taneja
Late Babu Lal (Through Legal Heir Sunder Lal) v. Jasrati Education Solutions Limited
Supreme Court of India | Civil Appeal No. 13878 of 2025 | Decision dated 25 November 2025
Our team represented the Respondent in proceedings arising from property transactions concerning a parcel of agricultural land in Alwar, Rajasthan. The said land was originally owned by a father and his 4 sons. The dispute originated from Memorandums of Understanding and Agreements to Sell executed in 2010–2011, pursuant to which full consideration was paid and possession of the land was transferred, along with registered Powers of Attorney authorizing the execution of sale deeds. The contractual rights were subsequently assigned to Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Limited (EISML), which later entered corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. In the meanwhile, the father had died.
In the corporate insolvency resolution process, a Resolution Plan which entailed taking over EISML, together with all its assets (including the aforementioned land parcels), as a going concern, was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (NCLT; the insolvency court in India). During the implementation of the approved resolution plan, when the acquirer of the company (with assets) proceeded to seek registration of property for absolute transfer in the company’s name, first the power of attorney holder refused to executed registered deeds. The Respondent had to approach the NCLT. NCLT directed the Power of Attorney holder and the legal heirs of the original landowner to execute the sale deed in favour of the Corporate Debtor in order to perfect title and complete the transaction. One of the sons of the deceased father sought to challenge the transaction as well as the order of the NCLT before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT; Appellate Court) on grounds including limitation, termination of the power of attorney upon the death of the executant, and lack of jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the transaction had been validly concluded prior to the death of the executant and that the NCLT possessed jurisdiction to issue directions necessary for the implementation of the resolution plan. This order was then challenged before the Supreme Court of India which ultimately dismissed the civil appeal, affirming the reasoning of the insolvency tribunals and finding no ground for interference.
Firm’s Role: Our team represented the Respondent across the insolvency and appellate proceedings, addressing issues relating to limitation, the validity of powers of attorney, and the jurisdiction of insolvency tribunals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Impact: The ruling affirms the broad jurisdiction of insolvency tribunals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to issue directions necessary for completing pre-existing transactions integral to the successful implementation of a resolution plan.
