Highlights:

Corporate Brief

• RBI circular for master direction – Reserve Bank of India (Credit Information Reporting) Directions, 2025.
• RBI circular for master direction – Reserve Bank of India (Non-resident Investment in Debt Instruments) Directions, 2025.
• SEBI circular on Revise and Revamp Nomination Facilities in the Indian Securities Market.
• RBI notification for Foreign Exchange Management (Mode of Payment and Reporting of Non- Debt Instruments) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025.
• RBI notification on Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Currency Accounts by a person resident in India) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025.
• RBI notification on Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025.
• RBI notification on Important Guidelines for prevention of financial frauds perpetrated using commercial communication using telecom resources through Voice Calls or SMS – regulatory prescriptions and institutional safeguards.
• RBI circular on Guidelines on Settlement of Dues of borrowers by ARCs.
• SEBI circular on Development of Web-based portal: iSPOT (Integrated SEBI Portal for Technical glitches) for reporting of technical glitches.
• RBI circular on Private Placement of Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) with maturity period of more than one year by Housing Finance Companies (HFCs) – Review of guidelines.
• RBI circular on Framework for imposing monetary penalty and compounding of offences under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.

RERA Brief

• Circular No. 212/ UP RERA/ 2024-025 dated 08.01.2025 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“UP RERA”) regarding GST Rates Collected from Allottees by Real Estate Promoters.
• Circular 628/ UP RERA/ S. No./ 2024-25 dated 23.01.2025 issued by Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“UP RERA”) providing the Terms and conditions for advertising/publicity of real estate projects registered with UP RERA.
• Circular No. P/2/2025 dated 29.01.2025 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“AP RERA”) for the imposition of a penalty of 12.5% of the registration fee over and above the actual registration fee irrespective of delay period as a one-time opportunity. 

Intellectual Property Rights Brief:  

• Sir Ratan Tata Trust & Anr. v Dr. Rajat Shrivastava & Ors. (CS(COMM) 104/2025) High Court of Delhi.
• Saregama India Limited vs. Vels Film International Limited & Ors. (CS(COMM) 38/2025) High Cour of Delhi.
• Case Title: CALEB SURESH MOTUPALLI v. CONT (2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59)

NCLT Brief:  

• Key Reforms in the CIRP of Real Estate Entities

Litigation Brief:  

• V. SAMUDRAM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [PRONOUNCED BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ON 04.01.2025 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8067 OF 2019]

 Corporate Brief:

Circular No. RBI/DoR/2024-25/125 dated 06.01.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI): 

Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Credit Information Reporting) Directions, 2025

RBI has, from time to time, issued several instructions/ directives to its regulated entities (REs) on credit information reporting. In exercise of its powers conferred under Section 11 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, RBI has issued the said Master Direction to consolidate the instructions issued to REs on reporting of the credit information.

These directions aim to establish a standardized framework for reporting and dissemination of credit information; safeguard the confidentiality and security of the sensitive credit data; provide mechanisms for consumers to access their credit information and grievance redressal on matters related to credit information reporting.

Circular No. RBI/2024-25/126 dated 07.01.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI): 

Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Non-resident Investment in Debt Instruments) Directions, 2025.

RBI had issued certain regulations for regulating the non-resident investment in debt instruments, namely: (i) Foreign Exchange Management (Permissible Capital Accounts Transactions) Regulations, 2000 notified vide Notification No. FEMA 1/2000-RB dated 03.05.2000; (ii) Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending) Regulations, 2018 notified vide Notification No. FEMA 3(R)/2018-RB dated 17.12.2018; and (iii) Foreign Exchange Management (Debt Instruments) Regulations, 2019 notified vide Notification No. FEMA. 396/2019-RB dated 17.10.2019.

Vide its powers conferred under sections 10(4) and 11(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 and under section 45W of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act, 1934, RBI has now issued the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Non-resident Investment in Debt Instruments) Directions, 2025, which consolidates directions issued in form of AP (DIR Series) Circulars at various times relating to non-resident investment in debt instruments in India. 

Circular Number SEBI/HO/OIAE/OIAE_IAD-3/P/ON/ 2025/01650 dated 10.01.2025 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): 

Revise and Revamp Nomination Facilities in the Indian Securities Market

In order to revise and revamp the norms for nomination for demat accounts and mutual fund (MF) folios and to prevent the generation of unclaimed assets in the Indian securities market, SEBI came out with a consultation paper in February, 2024, seeking comments from the public on various aspects of nomination.

Pursuant to the approval of the Board for amending the SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulations, 2018 and SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, SEBI has issued the said circular dated 10.01.2025 to revise the existing nomination facilities in the Indian securities market which are to be complied with by (i) asset management companies (AMCs) of mutual funds (MFs) and their registrars to an issue and share transfer agents, (ii) Association of Mutual Funds in India, (iii) recognized depositories, and (iv) registered depository participants.

Notification number FEMA 395(3)/2025-RB dated 14.01.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI): 

Foreign Exchange Management (Mode of Payment and Reporting of Non- Debt Instruments) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the RBI has issued Foreign Exchange Management (Mode of Payment and Reporting of Non- Debt Instruments) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (hereinafter ‘Third Amendment Regulations’), which have come in force from 14.01.2025.

The Third Amendment Regulations make certain amendments to the principal regulations i.e., Foreign Exchange Management (Mode of Payment and Reporting of Non-Debt Instruments) Regulations, 2019 (issued vide notification no. FEMA.395/2019-RB dated 17.10.2019) and as previously amended vide Notification No. FEMA. 395(1)/2020-RB dated 15.06.2020.

Notification Number FEMA 10(R)(5)/2025-RB dated 01.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI): 

Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Currency Accounts by a person resident in India) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 and Section 47(2)(e) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the RBI has issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Currency Accounts by a person resident in India) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (hereinafter ‘Fifth Amendment Regulations’), which have come in force from 15.01.2025.

The Fifth Amendment Regulations make certain amendments to the principal regulations i.e. Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Currency Accounts by a person resident in India) Regulations, 2015 (issued vide Notification No. FEMA 10(R)/2015-RB dated 21.01.2016), and previously amended vide (i) G.S.R. No.570(E) dated 01.06.2018; (ii)  G.S.R. No.160(E) dated 27.02.2019; (iii) Notification No.FEMA.10R(3)/2024-RB dated 23.04.2024; and (iv) Notification No.FEMA.10R(4)/2024-RB dated 21.11.2024.

In the principal regulations, in regulation 5, after sub-regulation (C) the following sub-regulation (CA) shall be inserted, namely:-

“CA. A person resident in India, being an exporter, may open, hold and maintain a Foreign Currency Account with a bank outside India, for realisation of full export value and advance remittance received by the exporter towards export of goods or services. Funds in this account may be utilised by the exporter for paying for its imports into India or repatriated into India within a period not exceeding the end of the next month from the date of receipt of the funds after adjusting for forward commitments, provided that the realisation and repatriation requirements as specified in Regulation 9 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2015 are also met.”

Notification Number FEMA 5(R)(5)/2025-RB dated 01.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 and Section 47(2)(e) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the RBI has issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (hereinafter ‘Fifth Amendment Regulations’), which have come in force from 14.01.2025.

The Fifth Amendment Regulations make certain amendments to the principal regulations i.e. Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2016 (issued vide Notification No. FEMA 5 (R)/2016-RB dated 01.04.2016), and previously amended vide (i) G.S.R. No. 1093(E) dated 09.11.2018; (ii)  G.S.R. No. 498(E) dated 16.07.2019; (iii) Notification No. FEMA 5(R)/(3)/2019-RB dated 13.11.2019; and (iv) Notification No. FEMA 5(R)/(4)/2024-RB dated 06.05.2024.

Notification Number RBI/2024-25/105 dated 17.01.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

Important Guidelines for prevention of financial frauds perpetrated using commercial communication using telecom resources through Voice Calls or SMS – regulatory prescriptions and institutional safeguards

To curb Unsolicited Commercial Communications (UCC) through voice calls or messages using telecommunication services, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has issued Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2018 (TCCCPR-2018) and several directions under these TCCCPR-2018.

Vide its notification dated 17.01.2025, RBI has issued guidelines to all commercial banks, primary (urban) cooperative banks, state co-operative banks, district central co-operative banks, prepaid payment instrument issuers, NBFCs, credit information companies, payment aggregators, payment system participants and payment system providers.

Circular Number RBI/2024-25/106 dated 20.01.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI): 

Guidelines on Settlement of Dues of borrowers by ARCs

Upon review of certain portions of the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Asset Reconstruction Companies) Directions, 2024 dated 24.04.2024 (‘said Master Directions’) which prescribes guidelines on settlement of dues payable by the borrowers of the ARCs and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 9 and 12 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, RBI has issued this circular to revise these guidelines and amend the paragraph 15 of the said Master Directions i.e. settlement of dues payable by the borrower.

Circular Number SEBI/HO/MRD/TPD/CIR/P/2025/08 dated 28.01.2025 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): 

Development of Web-based portal: iSPOT Integrated SEBI Portal for Technical glitches) for reporting of technical glitches

Vide its circular dated 28.01.2025, SEBI has stipulated the Standard Operating Procedure for handling of technical glitches by Market Infrastructure Institutions (MIIs) and payment of financial disincentive.

Presently, the MIIs (i.e. stock exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories), are required to report information about technical glitches and submit the root cause analysis (RCA)  reports to SEBI on the dedicated email ID i.e. [email protected].

In order to streamline the reporting process of technical glitches across MIIs and creation of centralized repository of technical glitches, SEBI has developed a web-based portal, i.e. Integrated SEBI Portal for Technical Glitches (iSPOT), for submission of preliminary and final RCA reports of technical glitches by the MIIs.

Circular number RBI/2024-25/107 dated 29.01.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI): 

Private Placement of Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) with maturity period of more than one year by Housing Finance Companies (HFCs) – Review of guidelines

On a review of Chapter XI of Master Direction – Non-Banking Financial Company – Housing Finance Company (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2021 i.e., guidelines on private placement of NCDs by HFCs, it has been decided by RBI that the guidelines on private placement of NCDs (with maturity more than one year) by NBFCs as under the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Company – Scale Based Regulation) Directions, 2023 (as amended from time to time) shall be applicable, mutatis-mutandis, to HFCs.

Therefore, vide its circular dated 29.01.2025, RBI has issued that the Master Direction – Non-Banking Financial Company – Housing Finance Company (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2021 stand repealed and the revised guidelines shall be applicable to all fresh private placements of NCDs (with maturity more than one year) by HFCs from the date of this circular.

Circular Number RBI/2024-25/108 dated 30.01.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI): 

Framework for imposing monetary penalty and compounding of offences under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007

Keeping in view the amendments by way of Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, to the provisions of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (PSS Act), and with the objective of rationalising and consolidating enforcement action by itself, RBI has been decided to amend the instructions contained in the ‘Framework for imposing monetary penalty on authorised payment system operators/ banks under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007’ (issued vide Circular DPSS.CO.OD.No.1328/06.08.005/2019-20 dated 10.01.2020).

RERA Brief:

Circular No. 212/ UP RERA/ 2024-025 dated 08.01.2025 issued by the UP RERA regarding GST Rates Collected from Allottees by Real Estate Promoters

• As per the Circular No. 212/ UP RERA/ 2024-025 dated 08.01.2025 issued by the UP RERA the State Tax Department has informed that GST Rates are changed by the GST Council from time to time. Furthermore, for projects before 1st April, 2019, the promoter can collect GST as per the rates provided under the 28th June, 2017 notification by manually submitting an application to the authorized tax assessing officer. In case no application is submitted, the tax shall be submitted as per the new rates provided under the notification of 29th March, 2019. Once a promoter has opted to collect tax as per the old rates in respect of a project, he cannot opt for the new tax rates.
• The circular also provides for the rate of GST applicable prior to and post the 2019 notification. The weblink to the circular dated 08.01.25 is as follows: https://www.up-rera.in/pdf/Regarding_GST.pdf.

Circular No. 628/ UP RERA/ No./ 2024-25 dated 23.01.2025 issued by UP RERA providing the terms and conditions for advertising/publicity of real estate projects registered with UP RERA.

• As per the circular no. 628/ UP RERA/ [.]/ 2024-25 dated 23.01.2025, the UP RERA mandated the following details have been mandated by the UP RERA in advertising/promoting the real estate project by the promoter to provide an authentic advertisement.

1. Every promotional material (print, electronic and social media), application form, allotment letter, brochure, BBA etc. must mention the following:
2. QR code given in the Registration Certificate (Form C)
3. RERA Registration Number (UPRERAPRJxxxxxx/xx/xxxx)

• Authority website (https://www.up-rera.in)

1. Project Collection Bank Account No.
2. The RERA Certificate issued in Form-C of the project should be displayed at the head office, site office and project site preferably in A3 size photo frame dimension.

• The provisions of the National Building Code (NBC), Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), as well as the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) should be complied with for building, construction materials and electrical safety.

1. QPR should be filled within 15 days of the end of each quarter.

• The notification further states that in case any publicity or advertisement of a project takes place without registration as prescribed under Section 3, then the said action shall be liable to a penalty as per Section 59 of the RERA Act, 2016. Additionally, contravention of directions with respect to advertisement of Projects shall be punishable under Section 61 and Section 62 of the Act.
• The weblink to the circular dated 23.01.25 is as follows: https://www.up-rera.in/pdf/42998Terms_and_Conditions_for_Promotion.pdf

Circular No. P/2/2025 dated 29.01.2025 issued by the Andhra Pradesh RERA for the imposition of a penalty of 12.5% of the registration fee over and above the actual registration fee irrespective of delay period as a one-time opportunity.

• As per the Circular No. P/2/2025 dated 29.01.2025 issued by the AP RERA, . Inspite of several measures taken by the AP RERA, still certain Promoters have not registered their projects with AP RERA. Since it is mandatory for all the projects coming under the preview of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to be registered, therefore  to ensure that all the pending projects are registered with AP RERA within the stipulated time, AP RERA has published the Circular.
• As per the Circular, AP RERA in accordance with the powers vested under Section 32 of the Act 2016 for the promotion of the real estate sector, decided to impose a one-time penalty of 12.50% of the registration fee over and above the actual registration fee irrespective of the delay period subject to applicability only up to 30.04.2025 for all un-registered project as a onetime opportunity.
• The Circular further states that if any un-registered project is identified after 30.04.2025, stringent action as per section 59 of the Act 2016 and Rules made there under will be taken against the promoter and liable to a penalty up to 10 % (ten percent) of the estimated cost of the Real Estate Project as determined by the AP RERA and also the unregistered projects information will be published in AP RERA website for information of Plot/Home Buyers.
• The weblink to the circular dated 29.01.25 is as follows: https://rera.ap.gov.in/rera/DOCUMENTS/Notice/Circular_29-01-2025.pdf.

Intellectual Property Rights Brief:  

Sir Ratan Tata Trust & Anr. v Dr. Rajat Shrivastava & Ors. (CS(COMM) 104/2025) High Court of Delhi.

Ratan Tata Trust filed a suit for trademark and copyright infringement against the Defendants, including a journalist- Dr. Rajat Srivastava, claiming their unauthorized use of the following:

1. a) Plaintiffs’ registered and well-known trademark TATA; and
2. b) Plaintiffs’ registered trademark TATA TRUSTS; and
3. c) Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the logo and
4. d) The well-known personal name RATAN TATA and his photograph

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were hosting an event by the name of “THE RATAN TATA NATIONAL ICON AWARD 2024” at the Maharashtra Sadan. The Defendant no. 1 was also charging a nomination fee of INR 3,000 (Indian Applicants) and USD 100 (International Applicants) for the aforesaid event, and claiming association with, the name Tata Trusts, Tata group and Mr. Ratan Tata.

The Defendants had also put up posts about the aforesaid unauthorized event on their website and social media accounts such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn.

The High Court observed that TATA has already been declared as a well-known mark and that “it is manifest that the name of Late Shri Ratan Tata is a well-known personal name/mark, which needs to be protected from any unauthorised use by any third party.”.

The learned counsel who appeared for Defendant nos. 1 and 2 submitted that:

• The impugned listing on the website has already been removed by the Defendants.
• The function has also been cancelled.
• The Defendants have no objection if the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs, as the Defendants did not intend to either use the name/mark of the Plaintiffs, or confer any awards that would be in the nature of infringement or passing off of the marks of the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff submitted that:

• They are satisfied with the statement made by the Defendants.
• They shall give up their prayer for costs and damages if the decree is passed in their favour.
• That the Defendants be directed to file an affidavit with respect to their undertaking that they shall not use the mark TATA or TATA Trust unauthorisedly, or deal with the marks of the plaintiffs, including, the name and photograph of late Mr. Ratan Tata in any manner whatsoever.

Considering the submissions made by both the parties, the present suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants were directed to file an affidavit stating that they shall not use the registered trademarks TATA or TATA Trust and the name and photograph of late Mr. Ratan Tata, for any purpose whatsoever, including, conferring any awards.

Saregama India Limited vs. Vels Film International Limited & Ors. (CS(COMM) 38/2025) High Court of Delhi.

The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for infringement of its copyright in the literary and musical work of the song ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’ from the cinematograph film ‘Moodu Pani’ in the cinematograph film ‘Aghathiyaa’, produced by Defendant no. 1. It was undisputed that the Defendants have used the lyrics and music composition of the song in question and have caused a fresh recording of the same.

In the matter, while the Plaintiff claims right in the said song on the basis of an assignment from the producer of the cinematograph film in question, the Defendant no. 3 claims his right in the said song, being the music composer of the said song. Defendant no. 1 claims its right on the basis of agreement with defendant no. 3.

The Hight Court was to decide whether the copyright in the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave‟ from the cinematograph film “Moodu Pani‟, vests in the plaintiff, in view of the assignment in its favour by the producer of the movie “Moodu Pani‟; or as to whether the copyright of the same vests with the Defendant no. 3, the music composer of the song in question.

In order to decide the issue in question, the Court referred to the scheme of the Copyright Act, 1957 and stated that various amendments were carried out in the Copyright Act from time to time. As such, in the present case, the agreement on the basis of which rights were being claimed by the Plaintiff, was of the year 1980, the provisions of the Copyright Act prior to amendment, shall be applicable.

Considering the definition of an author, as given in Section 2(d) and Section 17 (b) of the Copyright Act, the Court stated that:

• In case of soundtrack/sound recording, which forms part of a cinematograph film, the producer of the film is the author, who shall be the first owner of the copyright therein, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.

• The right of the composer of the music shall be safeguarded in terms of Section 13(4) and 14(1) of the Copyright Act, otherwise than as a part of the cinematograph film. Meaning thereby, the rights of the music composer, which is part of a cinematograph film, in terms of Section 14(1) of the Copyright Act, shall include the right to carry out all the acts, except to make any cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work as envisaged under Section 14(1)(v), as the said right of the music composer gets exhausted in terms of Section 17 (b) of the Copyright Act.

• The copyright in the song, which vests with a producer of the film, includes the musical work, the literary work, i.e., the lyrics, and the sound recording, which includes, musical composition as well as lyrics.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court held that the defendant no. 3, as the music composer, has no copyright over the literary work, i.e., the lyrics or the sound recording. Therefore, having no rights over the lyrics of the song, there is no question of Defendant no. 3 having any right to assign rights in the lyrics of the song to a third party. In the present case, on the basis of the agreement with Defendant no. 3, the Defendant no. 1 has used the lyrics and musical composition of the song, in order to recreate the sound recording of the said song. In the absence of any rights in the lyrics of the song, the Defendant no. 3 was not entitled to assign any right. Thus, on this account also, the Defendant no. 1 is not entitled to claim any right on the basis of an agreement with the defendant no. 3.

The Court further directed that the:

1. Defendant no. 1 shall be allowed to use the song in question in its cinematograph film, subject to deposit of Rs. 30 Lac with the Registrar General of this Court, within a period of two days.

2. Observations made in the present judgment, are only prima facie in nature and nothing contained herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

3. This Court further noted the submission of Defendant no.1 that it did not intend to pay any further amount, as it has already paid substantial amount to Defendant no. 3. Thus, in case the Defendant no. 1 did not intend to deposit the aforesaid amount, as directed by this Court, the Defendant no. 1 would stand injuncted from using the song in question, in its cinematograph film, ‘Aghathiyaa’. 

Case Title: CALEB SURESH MOTUPALLI v. CONT (2025 Livelaw (Mad) 59) High Court of Madras.

The Appellant filed a patent application for the invention titled “Necktie Persona-Extender/Environment-integrator and Method for Super-Augmenting a Persona to Manifest a Pan-Environment Super-Cyborg” under the Indian Patent Application No. 5606/CHENP/2012. However, the Controller of Patents rejected the application on April 21, 2021, citing that the complete specification lacked sufficient definition and description of non-limiting features. Additionally, the application was deemed to fail in transforming the claimed abstract idea into a patentable invention. The rejection also pointed out the use of biblical references, undefined terms, and ambiguous phrases that broadened the scope of the claims, failing to meet the legal criteria for patentability. Moreover, the inter-disciplinary nature of the invention was considered insufficient to overcome the ineligibility.

Subsequently, the Appellant filed a review petition before the Controller of Patent. The Controller refused the application on the same grounds as before vide the order dated October 27, 2021. The Appellant then challenged the decision issued on October 27, 2021, by the Controller of Patents, by filing an appeal.

In the appeal, the Appellant asserted that his invention offers a ‘beyond-AI’ solution to address the issue of ‘n-Entropy’ the loss of agency and control resulting from the growing capabilities of AI and the potential threat of Runaway AI. He emphasized that this issue is particularly evident in the form of job losses caused by automation.

The primary issues in this appeal revolved around two key questions. The first issue was whether the invention claimed in the Patent application meets the patentability criteria outlined in the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”) particularly in relation to Sections 3(k), 3(m), 10(4)(a), 10(4)(b), and 10(5). The second issue was whether the appeal is permissible under Section 117-A of the Act.

The court observed that Section 10(4)(b) of the Act mandates that the complete specification must disclose the “best method of performing the invention that is known to the applicant and for which he is entitled to claim protection.” It was noted that the complete specification lacked a) any explanation of how the object-oriented analysis technique could be used to achieve the intended integration, and b) any technical feature that would facilitate the decussation of the pyramids hosting the actors.

As a result, the court found that the claimed invention failed under Section 10(4)(b) since it did not provide any practical criteria for achieving the intended result, let alone disclose the best method of performing the invention.

Additionally, Section 10(5) of the Patents Act requires that the claims of the invention be clear, concise, and fairly supported by the matter disclosed in the specification. The court concluded that the claimed invention failed to meet the requirements of Section 10(5) due to ambiguity and the inability to base the claims fairly on the disclosures provided in the complete specification.

Regarding Section 3(k), the Court was of the view that if the claimed invention demonstrates a technical effect that is not limited to an application or data set, improves the functioning and efficacy of the system, and impacts the hardware, it would overcome the prohibition under this provision. It was observed by the Court that while the claimed invention addresses the issue of the loss of human agency due to the increasing capabilities of AI, in the absence of any working examples or demonstrations of how these techniques can be applied to achieve persona extension and integration, the claimed invention fails to demonstrate a technical effect. It does not have any impact on hardware and does not achieve the promised result of super-augmenting the user.

Therefore, the Court held that the claimed invention did not meet the criteria under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act and is consequently deemed patent-ineligible.

NCLT Brief:

Key Reforms in the CIRP of Real Estate Entities

On 03th February, 2025, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) introduced key amendments to the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 through the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (“Amendment”).

Objective of the Amendment

The objective of this Amendment is to accelerate the delivery and possession of units/plots/apartment of stressed assets in the real estate sector undergoing corporate insolvency and to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of real estate insolvency proceedings under the IBC.

Key Features of the Amendment

In order to achieve its objective and streamline the delivery of the units and aide allottees and homebuyers , the following key provisions have been incorporated under the Amendment:

1. Handing over the Possession to the Allottees

• Regulation 4E of the Amendment states that the Resolution Professional (“RP”) after obtaining the approval of 66% of the committee of creditors (“COC”) of the corporate debtor, shall handover the possession and registration of unit(s) in the project to any allottee making such a request.
• This approval is on the basis of the fact that the allottee(s) have requested for the possession and registration of unit(s) and completed their payment obligations before possession or transfer, ensuring sufficient funds for project completion. This could considerably reduce the time for delivery of unit(s) to allottees.

2. Participation of Competent Authorities for faster Project Completion

• The project handover depends on completing real estate developments, requiring approvals from the land-owning authorities. It is for this reason that Regulation 18(5) of the Amendment permits ‘Competent Authority’ as defined under Section 2(p) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA Act”), (e.g., NOIDA, GNIDA, YEIDA, DTCP, Haryana etc.) to participate CoC meetings albeit without voting rights. This will ensure that the land-owning authority facilitates the land-related issues and regulatory requirements to accelerate construction such as receiving Occupation Certificate/ Completion Certificate from these authorities.
• The Regulation 18(5) read with Regulation 30C, which requires the RPs to prepare a detailed report on development rights and the approvals required for a project, would aid in ascertaining approvals required to be undertaken for the completion of the project.
• The transfer of the title of the unit(s) can only be done with the approval of the Land-owner of the Project, which may either be the ‘competent authority’ or a private entity. The introduction of Regulation 18(5) the Amendment is significant as the Competent Authority being represented in the CoC meetings would ensure that they provide valuable input prior during the CIRP period and also enhance the viability and feasibility of Resolution Plans thus minimising the challenge to resolution plans thus reducing delays and complication in project completion. This would effectively reduce the timeline for the completion of the project and handover.

3. Role of Facilitators

• The IBC previously only allowed for one Authorised representative per class of creditors, regardless of the class size. The introduction of ‘Facilitators’ under Regulations 16C of the Amendment for large-scale real estate projects with more than a thousand (1000) allottees resolves this issue. Allottees can further form sub-classes, comprising at least 100 allottees and propose a ‘facilitator’ to present their issues, such as, possession and transfer, before the RP, the Authorised Representative and that particular sub-class of allottees.

In order for the successful implementation of the Amendment, the RP, competent authorities and allottees have to work harmoniously to ensure that the object of accelerating the process of delivery of units is achieved.

Litigation Brief:

CASE ANALYSIS: S.V. SAMUDRAM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [PRONOUNCED BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ON 04.01.2025 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8067 OF 2019]

It is a civil appeal challenging the judgement and order dated 7^th February, 2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 24507 of 2010 (AA) under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which affirmed the modification of the arbitral award by the learned Civil Judge, Sirsi.

Facts:

1. S.V. Samudram, a registered Class II Civil Engineering Contractor had secured a contract from the Karnataka State Public Works Department to construct the office and residence of the Chief Conservator of Forests at Sirsi for Rs. 14.86 Lakhs.
2. The contract was entered on 29^th January, 1990 and the work was to be completed on or before 6^th May 1992.
3. The work allotted could not be completed by the Claimant-Appellant and he held the state authorities responsible for it as they did not clear his bills. He also alleged that delays were caused by the change of site and in delivery of material for such construction.
4. The parties resorted to arbitral mechanism for the settlement of the dispute and in Arbitration petition dated 31^st May, 2002 in which Mr. S.K Angadi, Chief Engineer (Retd.) appointed as the Arbitrator on 30^th July, 2002.
5. Having heard both sides, Learned Arbitrator identified three primary issues-
6. inordinate delay in handing over of site for performance of contract;
7. non-supply of working drawings and designs; and
8. delay in supply of materials.
9. The Learned Arbitrator found the Respondents liable for each of these issues.
10. The Respondents preferred a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Civil Judge, Sirsi.
11. The award passed by the Learned Arbitrator was modified, reducing the amount awarded as also interest thereupon – i.e., Rs. 14,68,239/- @ 18% to only 25% of the tender amount which equals to Rs. 3,71,564/- and the interest percentage thereon was reduced to 9%.
12. The High Court in the proceedings under section 37 of the A&C Act has confirmed the modification of the arbitral award as passed by the Civil Judge, Sirsi.

Issue:

Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in confirming the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi, whereby the award passed by the Learned Arbitrator was modified and the amount awarded was reduced?

Court’s observations and findings:

1. The court examined the scope to interfere with arbitral awards under section 34 and 37 of the A&C Act.
2. The court observed that the position as to whether an arbitral award can be modified under section 34 or 37 of the A&C Act is no longer res integra.
3. The court reaffirmed the judgement in the National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeen and Another[1] in which it was held that any Court under section 34 has no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award. The Court observed that any attempt to “modify an award” under section 34 would amount to “crossing the Lakshman Rekha”.
4. The Court also mentioned the judgement in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Navigant Technologies Private Limited[2] in which it was held that under section 34 of the A&C Act, the Court may either uphold the award or set aside the award if the grounds contained in sub-sections (2) and (2-A) are made out. There is no power to modify an arbitral award.
5. The arbitrator’s view is generally binding upon the parties unless it is set aside on certain specified grounds.
6. It is reiterated that if the view of the Learned Arbitrator is a plausible view, then no interference on the specified grounds is warranted.[3]
7. The court observed that in the instant case the only provision under which the award could have been assailed was for conflicting with the public policy of India. However, none of the reasons given for the award is contrary to the public policy of India, which would enable the court to look into the merits of the award.
8. The court found that the view taken by the learned arbitrator was the plausible view and could not have been substituted for its own by the Court. It is not the business of the court to consider the burden on the exchequer. All that is required to have a supervisory jurisdiction to consider breach in the light of the grounds specified under section 34.
9. The modification of the arbitral award by the learned Civil Judge, Sirsi must be set aside.
10. While analysing the challenge to the order passed by the High Court under section 37 of the Act, the hon’ble court reiterated MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd.[4] in which it was held, “as far as interference with an order made under Section 34, as per Section 37, is concerned, it cannot be disputed that such interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34…”
11. The court observed that learned Single Judge, similar to learned Civil Judge under section 34, appears to have not concerned themselves with the contours of Section 37 of the Act.
12. The court held that the interest awarded was reduced without any legal basis. While exercising power under Article 142, to ensure substantial justice between the parties, the court deemed it appropriate to award interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of award pendente lite and future, till date of payment.
13. The Hon’ble Court allowed the appeal with a direction to the State of Karnataka to expeditiously pay the amount.

Disclaimer:

For private circulation to the addressee only and not for re-circulation. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/ or publication of this Newsletter is strictly prohibited. This Newsletter is not intended to be an advertisement or solicitation. The contents of this Newsletter are solely meant to inform and is not a substitute for legal advice. Legal advice should be obtained based on the specific circumstances of each case, before relying on the contents of this Newsletter or prior to taking any decision based on the information contained in this Newsletter. ZEUS Law disclaims all responsibility and accepts no liability for the consequences of any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such information. If you have received this Newsletter in error, please notify us immediately by telephone.

Copyright © 2014 ZEUS Law. All rights reserved. Replication or redistribution of content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of ZEUS Law.

 

[1] (2021) 9 SCC 1.

[2] (2021) 7 SCC 657.

[3] Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project, (2023) 9 SCC 85.

[4] (2019) 4 SCC 163.