Our Team

In a landmark 4:1 majority decision, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that Indian courts do possess the power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This overturned decades of conservative jurisprudence that argued courts could only "annul" (set aside) but never "edit." However, this power is not absolute; it is "limited modification" intended to prevent the "re-arbitration trap."

In a historic ruling, the Apex Court has definitively closed the door on tenants claiming ownership through Adverse Possession. The Court held that since a tenant enters a property through "permissive possession" (a rent deed or oral agreement), that possession can never become hostile to the owner, regardless of whether the tenant has occupied the premises for 10 or 70 years.

In our two-and-a-half decades of practice, we have observed that Section 498A (Cruelty) and Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) are frequently invoked as tactical weapons during matrimonial fallout. This case study highlights a landmark success where our firm utilized the High Court's inherent powers to protect a family from a patently malicious prosecution.

The judiciary has definitively expanded the scope of a woman’s right to reside in a "shared household" under the DV Act. The court ruled that "actual residence" at the time of the dispute is not a prerequisite; the mere "right to reside" by virtue of a matrimonial relationship is sufficient to seek protection against dispossession.

If you build a mall, a warehouse, or a hotel to earn rental income, the Government used to tell you that the GST paid on construction was a "dead cost." This judgment flips the script: it introduces a "Functionality Test" that could save businesses millions by allowing them to offset construction taxes against rental income—preventing the dreaded "tax on tax."