Gati Vidhi – December 2025

Supreme Court holds that an arbitral award can be construed to be in conflict with public policy and liable to be set aside when the effect of an undue and unexplained delay in its delivery is explicit and adversely reflects on the findings

In M/s Lancor Holdings Limited v. Prem Kumar Menon and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 10074-10075/2024, vide Judgment dated 31.10.2025, the Supreme Court has dealt with the following two issues:

1. The effect of undue and unexplained delay in the pronouncement of an arbitral award upon its validity; and 

2. Whether an arbitral award that is unworkable, in terms of not settling the disputes between the parties, altering their positions irrevocably and leaving them no choice but to initiate further litigation, is liable to be set aside on grounds of perversity, patent illegality and being opposed to the public policy of India under Article 142 of the Constitution.

In this case, the arbitrator had reserved the award on 28.07.2012 but pronounced it only on 16.03.2016 i.e., after a period of 3 years and 3 months. There was no definite resolution of the matter and no explanation for the delay.

The Supreme Court has held as follows:

1. In the usual course, long delay in the passing of arbitral awards is not the norm. When an instance of undue delay in the delivery of an arbitral award crops up, each case has to be examined on its own individual facts to ascertain whether the award would stand vitiated due to the lapses committed by the arbitral tribunal owing to such delay.

2. There must be a balance between the pace of the arbitration, culminating in an arbitral award, and the satisfactory meaningful content thereof.

3. Where the negative effect of the delay is explicit and adversely reflects on the findings in the award, particularly if it remains unexplained, it can be construed to be a factor to set aside the award as being in conflict with the public policy. Delay in the delivery of an arbitral award is not a ground in itself to set aside an award.

4. Section 14 (2) and Section 34 of the AC Act operate independently. The latter is not dependent on the former. An aggrieved party is not necessarily required to invoke the remedy under Section 14 (2) as a condition precedent to laying a challenge to a delayed and tainted award under Section 34.
   
5. The very basis and public policy underlying the process of arbitration is that it is less time-consuming and results in speedier resolution of disputes between the parties. If that premise is not fulfilled by an unworkable arbitral award then such an arbitral award would not only be in conflict with the public policy but would also be patently illegal on the face of it.

TRAI releases Consultation Paper on Review of Interconnection Regulations

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”), vide its notice dated 10.11.2025, has released a consultation paper titled “Review of Existing TRAI Regulations on Interconnection Matters.” TRAI has undertaken a detailed review of all nine prevailing interconnection regulations under Section 11(1)(b) of the TRAI Act, 1997, in view of rapid technological developments in the telecom sector. The paper examines the need to update legacy frameworks to support IP-based interconnection essential for 4G/5G networks, rationalise interconnection levels, and address emerging issues related to satellite-based communication systems, including the location and functioning of Points of Interconnect.

The consultation also seeks views on the regulatory treatment of various interconnection charges, such as IUC, origination, transit, carriage, termination, and international termination charges, and the existing Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) framework. Inputs have been received from stakeholders during the pre-consultation held on 3 April 2025. Written comments are invited by 8.12.2025, with counter-comments due by 22.12.2025, through the TRAI website.

TRAI issues Direction mandating Pre-Tagging of Variable Fields in Commercial SMS Templates

TRAI, vide its direction dated 18.11.2025, has mandated all Access Providers to ensure pre-tagging of every variable component used in SMS content templates for commercial communication. Variable fields, such as URLs, app download links, or callback numbers, must now be clearly tagged at the time of template registration, with the sender specifying their intended purpose. This requirement enables Access Providers to automatically identify and scrub these elements against approved domains, numbers, and links.

The Direction has been issued in response to repeated instances uncovered during UCC (Unsolicited Commercial Communication) investigations where untagged variables were misused to insert fraudulent or malicious links and numbers into otherwise approved templates. Mandatory pre-tagging will require principal entities to categorise and register all variable fields in advance, thereby enhancing traceability and accountability. Access Providers and principal entities must update existing templates within 60 days, after which any SMS sent via non-compliant templates will be rejected. This measure further strengthens safeguards under the Telecom Commercial Communication Customer Preference Regulations, 2018 and is expected to enhance consumer safety and trust by preventing misuse of commercial SMS channels, especially in critical sectors such as banking, financial services, and essential services. The directions can be accessed from the following link.

IBBI has issued the procedure for restoration of properties of the Corporate Debtor attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) has issued Circular No. IBBI/CIRP/87/2025 dated 04.11.2025 stipulating the procedure for restoration of properties attached by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) in cases where a Corporate Debtor is undergoing insolvency or liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The objective of the same is to significantly enhance the value of the Corporate Debtor leading to higher realization.

The salient features of the circular are as follow:

1. Insolvency Professional (“IP”) can file an application before the Special Court under Sections 8 (7) and 8 (8) of the PMLA for restoration of attached assets.

2. Standard undertaking has to be furnished by the IP along with the Application to facilitate expeditious disposal.

3. IPs have to submit quarterly reports to the Special Court containing status of these assets, details of usage / monetisation, list of beneficiaries for any distribution, and information on any sale or transfer.

4. IPs have to disclose the details of all properties under attachment by the Enforcement Directorate.

The circular can be accessed here.

IBBI has issued the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2025

IBBI has notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2025 on 14.10.2025 to update the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) regulatory framework (“CIRP Regulations”).

1. Regulation 39C (Assessment of sale as a going concern) has been omitted. While approving a resolution plan under Section 30 of IBC or deciding on liquidation under Section 33 of IBC, the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) was earlier required to inter alia recommend that the liquidator attempt a sale of the Corporate Debtor or its business as a going concern the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016. Consequent amendment has been made in Form H by omitting Para 15 (b).

2. Regulation 39D has been amended. As per the amended Regulation 39D, the CoC can fix the fee payable to the liquidator, if an order for liquidation is passed under Section 33 of IBC, for the period used for compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the balance period of liquidation. The period used for sale under Regulation 32 (e) and (f) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 has been omitted.

The Regulation can be accessed here.

IBBI has issued a circular to strengthen due diligence under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

IBBI has issued Circular No. IBBI/CIRP/88/2025 on 18.11.2025 with the objective of strengthening due diligence under Section 29A of IBC which lays down the ineligibility criteria for resolution applicants i.e., persons who are not eligible to submit a resolution plan for a Corporate Debtor undergoing CIRP, including but not limited to wilful defaulters, individuals convicted of specified offences, and persons involved in preferential, undervalued, extortionate, or fraudulent transactions.

The circular reiterates the duties of the Resolution Professionals under the IBC and the CIRP Regulations and notes that due diligence with respect to Section 29A compliance is paramount as it safeguards the integrity of the process by ensuring that only credible resolution applicants participate in the process and reduces the risk of legal challenges post-approval of resolution plan.

The Resolution Professionals have been directed to place a detailed note on Section 29A compliance before the CoC when resolution plans are considered and ensure that deliberations and observations of the CoC are properly recorded in the minutes.

The circular can be accessed here.