August Newsletter

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

Regulatory Update

EPFO Declares 8.25% Interest Rate on EPF Deposits for FY 2025-26

The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, vide Circular No. INV-11/2/2021-INV/E-41960/2519 dated 1 July 2026, has formally notified an interest rate of 8.25% per annum on Employees' Provident Fund deposits for the financial year 2025-26. The rate has been declared following approval conveyed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, and Regional and Zonal Offices across the country have been directed to proceed with crediting the approved interest to the accounts of all eligible subscribers.

The notification and its accompanying operational instructions cover the following:

• Formal confirmation of the 8.25% interest rate for FY 2025-26, conveyed after approval by the Central Government in consultation with the Ministry of Finance.

• Directions to Regional and Zonal Offices to initiate the crediting process across nearly 34 crore member accounts, processed through the EPFO's automated system.

• Instructions requiring field offices to complete a final round of verification before formally approving the crediting of interest, so as to avoid erroneous postings.

• Integration of the crediting exercise with the EPFO's annual accounts processing cycle for FY 2025-26, which has been migrated onto the newly deployed CITES 2.01 software platform.

• A parallel Enrolment Campaign, running from 1 July to 31 October 2026, allowing employers to voluntarily declare left-out employees for the period 2009–2026, with a nominal lump-sum damage fee of ₹100 per defaulting establishment and a waiver of the employee's share of contribution where it was not originally deducted.

  
  

The declaration brings welcome clarity for millions of subscribers and employers alike, particularly as India's four new Labour Codes continue their phased rollout, and reflects EPFO's broader push toward faster, technology-enabled account servicing.

Notable Judgement

Pankaj Kumar v. Jagaran Prakashan Limited & Others

In an interim order dated 15 July 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed Jagaran Prakashan Limited publisher of the widely circulated Hindi daily Dainik Jagran to deposit an adjudicated labour award of ₹14.25 lakh within four weeks. The order was passed by a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi while hearing a batch of special leave petitions (SLP (C) No. 18502 of 2022; SLP (C) Nos. 24361-24364 of 2023; SLP (C) No. 10629 of 2026) concerning employees Amar Kumar Singh and Kishan Lal.

The litigation traces back to proceedings before labour adjudicatory authorities under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, relating to the Dainik Jagran establishment in Noida. The workmen succeeded before the labour forum and were granted monetary awards, which the employer subsequently challenged before higher judicial forums, eventually leading to the present proceedings before the Supreme Court. One connected matter, arising from Patna High Court proceedings, was heard together with the batch concerning Amar Kumar Singh and Kishan Lal's awards.

While the Court has not yet decided the substantive employment dispute on merits, the Bench was careful to record that the direction to deposit is a procedural, interim safeguard rather than a determination of liability: it does not amount to a concession by the employer, nor does it bind the outcome of the pending appellate proceedings. The order illustrates the Supreme Court's continuing practice of directing interim deposit of labour awards during the pendency of employer challenges, thereby protecting workmen from prolonged deprivation of adjudicated dues while preserving the employer's right to contest liability on appeal.

International Update

Australia — "Payday Super" Reform Takes Effect Nationwide

Effective 1 July 2026, every employer in Australia is required, for the first time, to pay employees' superannuation guarantee (SG) contributions on the same day as wages are paid, rather than on the previous quarterly cycle, pursuant to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Act 2025 and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Act 2025.

The reform, widely regarded as the most significant change to Australia's superannuation system since the Superannuation Guarantee was first introduced in 1992, introduces the following key features:

• Superannuation contributions must be received by the employee's nominated super fund within seven business days of each payday, replacing the earlier requirement of quarterly payment by the 28th day following each quarter.

• The minimum superannuation guarantee is now calculated on "qualifying earnings," a newly defined term that combines ordinary time earnings with other specified payments, rather than ordinary time earnings alone.

• The Small Business Superannuation Clearing House, previously used by many small employers to process contributions, formally closed on 1 July 2026, requiring affected businesses to migrate to an alternative payment channel.

• Employers who fail to ensure contributions reach the employee's fund within the seven-business-day window automatically become liable for the Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC), which includes a fixed administrative uplift component designed to discourage late or unpaid contributions; the SGC itself is not tax-deductible.

• Late payment of the SGC beyond 28 days of assessment attracts penalties of 25% or 50% of the unpaid charge, depending on the employer's prior compliance record, and these penalties cannot be reduced or waived.

  
  

According to ATO estimates, the previous quarterly system had allowed a superannuation guarantee compliance gap of approximately AUD 6.2 billion to develop in 2022–23 alone, and the reform is expected to substantially close this gap by aligning the timing of superannuation payments with the timing of wage payments themselves.

ARBITRATION

Notable Judgement

Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors.

In Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors. (2026 INSC 701), decided on 14 July 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of minimal judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings, holding that High Courts should not ordinarily exercise their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting a jurisdictional challenge raised under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The dispute traces back to a partnership constituted in 1948, with the appellant, an IAS officer who had obtained government permission to become a sleeping partner holding a 25% share under a subsequent partnership deed. During the pendency of Supreme Court-referred arbitral proceedings, three respondent companies sought deletion of their names on the ground that they were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. The arbitral tribunal treated their application as one under Section 16 and rejected it, noting that the Supreme Court had already referred all parties to arbitration by consent order. The respondents then challenged this rejection before the Gauhati High Court by way of a civil revision petition under Article 227, which the High Court entertained and used to stay the tribunal's proceedings.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Vijay Bishnoi held that while Article 227 jurisdiction is not entirely ousted by Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, interference in ongoing arbitral proceedings must be exercised with extreme circumspection, and only where there is a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction or manifest perversity — not merely because a party is dissatisfied with the tribunal's determination. The Court held that the correct remedy against an order rejecting a Section 16 application lies under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, exercisable only after the arbitral award is finally rendered.

The judgment strengthens India's pro-arbitration jurisprudence by discouraging premature judicial interference during the pendency of arbitral proceedings, and clarifies that the comprehensive statutory scheme of the 1996 Act envisages a limited, deferred role for the courts.

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (IBC)

Regulatory Update

IBBI Releases Discussion Paper on Strengthening the Regulatory Framework

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, on 2 July 2026, released a Discussion Paper titled "Strengthening the Regulatory Framework Amendments to CIRP Regulations, Liquidation Regulations and PG to CD Regulations," proposing a fresh round of amendments aimed at plugging procedural gaps and aligning existing regulations with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026.

The Discussion Paper proposes several significant changes, including:

• Requiring the Committee of Creditors' approval before appointment of registered valuers, and prescribing fixed timelines for submission of valuation reports so as to reduce delays in the resolution process.

• Maintaining confidentiality of valuation reports until the resolution plan stage is reached, and removing the requirement to disclose fair value in the Information Memorandum, to reduce the risk of valuation figures anchoring bids.

• Introducing procedural clarity following the 2026 IBC Amendment Act, requiring parties to formally notify creditors and debtors that the interim moratorium no longer applies to personal guarantors once the corporate debtor's resolution process concludes, and clarifying that recovery proceedings against personal guarantors may continue unimpeded.

• Clarifying that the Resolution Professional must continue performing statutory duties until a Section 12A withdrawal application is finally decided by the Adjudicating Authority, thereby avoiding a vacuum in administration.

• Removing the requirement for liquidators to seek prior Adjudicating Authority approval for routine, non-substantive modifications to the list of stakeholders, easing administrative burden during liquidation.

  
  

The Board invited public comments on the proposals electronically until 22 July 2026, continuing its practice of consultative rule-making. A separate discussion paper on strengthening resolution outcomes specifically in real estate insolvency was also released around the same period, with comments invited until 21 July 2026, proposing project-wise insolvency, ring-fencing of project funds, and enhanced coordination with RERA authorities.

Notable Judgement

Rajaram Food Products India Limited v. The Joint District Registrar (Class-I) and Collector of Stamps, Nashik & Ors.

In a ruling dated 14 July 2026 (Writ Petition No. 3018 of 2026; Citation: 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 1096), a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat held that a sale certificate issued by a liquidator under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in respect of property sold through public e-auction is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and does not attract stamp duty where it is sent to the registering authority only for filing in Book No. 1 under Section 89(4) of that Act.

The petitioner, Rajaram Food Products, had purchased immovable property belonging to Gonglu Agro Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation) through an e-auction conducted by the liquidator on 30 December 2024, and was issued a sale certificate dated 30 January 2026 after depositing the full consideration. When the liquidator forwarded the certificate for filing under Section 89(4), the Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Nashik, by order dated 16 February 2026, insisted that stamp duty was payable under Article 16 of Schedule I of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The petitioner challenged this, relying on Supreme Court precedent in State of Punjab v. Ferrous Alloy Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (2024) and Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank (2021), and contending that Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act expressly exempts sale certificates issued in public auctions, and that the IBC is not a "recovery Act" attracting the Maharashtra-specific amendment to Section 17(1)(g).

The Court agreed, holding that a sale certificate issued after an auction is not a transfer document but merely proof of ownership once the sale is confirmed, and that under Section 89(4) such certificates are simply filed in Book No. 1 without requiring registration — stamp duty becomes payable only if the purchaser later uses the certificate for registration or some other purpose. The Court emphasised that the IBC is not a debt-recovery statute but a framework for revival and liquidation, so the Maharashtra amendment could not be invoked. It accordingly quashed the Registrar's order and directed the authorities to accept and file the certificate without insisting on stamp duty or registration fees.

International Update

Singapore — 1MDB Liquidators Cleared to Pursue US$2.7 Billion Claim Against Standard Chartered

On 2 July 2026, a Singapore court upheld the dismissal of Standard Chartered Bank's strike-out application, clearing the way for liquidators of three entities connected to the 1MDB financial scandal to proceed with a US$2.7 billion recovery claim against the bank — one of the largest active cross-border insolvency recovery actions currently before the Singapore courts.

The development formed part of a broader wave of cross-border insolvency activity reported out of Singapore during the same period:

• For Singaporean liquidators and bankruptcy trustees pursuing potential recovery actions, commentators noted that the question has shifted from whether third-party litigation funding can be obtained to how it should be structured.

• Judges from Singapore, Malaysia and India held a comparative judicial dialogue on approaches to super-priority financing in cross-border insolvency proceedings.

• A senior judge from mainland China discussed a new chapter on judicial cooperation proposed in draft amendments to China's Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, signalling continued regional convergence in cross-border insolvency practice.

  
  

The 1MDB-linked litigation is expected to remain a closely watched benchmark for cross-border asset-recovery actions against major international banks in the years ahead.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR)

Notable Judgement

Home Box Office Inc. & Ors. v. Streamzy.to & Ors.

In an order dated 27 July 2026 (CS(COMM) 740/2026; Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5967), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim dynamic injunction restraining 30 identified "rogue websites," including Streamzy.to, from streaming Home Box Office's copyrighted motion pictures and television content without licence in several instances even before the content's official release.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, hearing the plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, restrained Defendant Nos. 1–30 (the pirate websites) from streaming or making available HBO's copyrighted works, and directed Defendant Nos. 51–59 (internet service providers) to block access to them. The suit also impleaded the domain name registrars who had registered the offending websites (Defendant Nos. 31–50) and, notably, the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Defendant Nos. 60–61).

Refining the "dynamic injunction" doctrine first established in UTV Software Communications v. 1337X.TO (2019), the Court held that while rights-holders should not be compelled to approach the Court afresh every time a blocked site resurfaces under a new domain, the final determination of whether a newly discovered website is genuinely "rogue" must remain with the Court it cannot be left to the unilateral assessment of either the plaintiffs or an intermediary. Under the resulting "Dynamic+" framework, a plaintiff who discovers a suspected mirror or redirect domain must furnish an affidavit with supporting evidence to the relevant ISP or domain registrar, who may then perform a limited technical verification and block the site on a provisional basis but the plaintiff must simultaneously move the Court to formally implead the new site, so that the block remains subject to judicial oversight rather than private discretion. Following the order, several listed domains, including Streamzy.to, were suspended by registrars within a day.

International Update

European Union — EUIPO's 2026 Examination Guidelines Enter into Force

The updated Guidelines for the Examination of European Union Trade Marks and Registered EU Designs, adopted by the EUIPO's Executive Director through Decision No. EX-26-09 on 30 June 2026, formally entered into force on 1 July 2026, introducing a comprehensive set of practical changes for applicants and rights-holders across the EU trade mark and design system.

Among the most notable changes are:

• An increase in the permitted number of static design views from seven to ten per design, accompanied by newly prescribed technical file formats -JPEG for static views, OBJ or STL for dynamic 3D representations, and MP4 for animated design representations.

• A formal distinction, introduced for the first time, between static, animated and dynamic representations of a registered design.

• Clarification that a "sufficiently clear representation" of a mark or design is now treated as a filing-date requirement, rather than a matter that may be cured after filing.

• Expansion of the grounds for non-registrability to expressly incorporate Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, including its specific application in the context of EU enlargement and new Member State accessions.

Although the Guidelines are not legislation in themselves, they constitute the authoritative internal working instructions binding on EUIPO examiners and the Boards of Appeal, and are consequently regarded by practitioners as being nearly as consequential in day-to-day practice as the underlying statutory provisions.

WHITE COLLAR CRIMES

Notable Judgement

Directorate of Enforcement v. Poonam Malik, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 25221/2026

On 31 July 2026, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu in the matter titled Directorate of Enforcement v. Poonam Malik, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 25221/2026 dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's special leave petition, thereby upholding a Delhi High Court ruling that an order freezing a bank account under Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be passed solely on the basis of "suspicion."

The controversy turned on the precise interpretation of Section 17 of the PMLA. While Section 17(1) governing search and seizure expressly requires an authorised officer to record "reasons to believe" before acting, Section 17(1A), which separately empowers the ED to freeze bank accounts or other property, does not repeat that specific phrase in its text. The Delhi High Court had earlier held that the two provisions form part of a single, integrated statutory scheme governing coercive investigative action under the PMLA, and must be read harmoniously; accordingly, the same threshold of “reasons to believe” capable of being recorded in writing and subjected to judicial scrutiny applies equally to freezing orders under Section 17(1A).

By dismissing the ED's challenge, the Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation in unambiguous terms, holding that the agency cannot bypass the statutory safeguard of recorded "reasons to believe" merely because Section 17(1A) is silent on the precise phrase, and that freezing a citizen's bank account one of the most intrusive investigative tools available to the ED must always be supported by documented, judicially reviewable reasoning rather than vague suspicion or conjecture. The ruling is expected to have significant implications for numerous pending freezing orders across the country, particularly benefiting persons who are not themselves named as accused in the predicate offence but whose assets have nonetheless been frozen on account of an alleged association with an ongoing investigation.

International Update

United States — DOJ Announces First FCPA Deferred Prosecution Agreement of 2026

On 17 July 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a three-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement with The Scoular Company, an Omaha-based agricultural supply chain company, resolving a $10 million enforcement action under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act arising from a years-long scheme to bribe Mexican officials in exchange for facilitating the importation of corn and other agricultural products into Mexico.

Several features of the resolution are of particular note:

• Investigators found that some of the bribe payments funnelled by Scoular through third parties ultimately reached individuals connected to cartel activity in Mexico, a factor the DOJ treated as aggravating the seriousness of the underlying offence, notwithstanding evidence that Scoular's own employees were reportedly unaware of this connection.

• The DOJ once again relied heavily on internal WhatsApp messages discussing the bribe arrangements as key documentary evidence a recurring evidentiary pattern across several recent FCPA prosecutions.

• The resolution is consistent with DOJ's publicly stated 2026 enforcement priorities under its June 2025 FCPA Guidelines, which specifically flag bribery schemes touching Mexico and cartel-adjacent conduct as an area of continued focus, notwithstanding a broader slowdown in the overall pace of FCPA enforcement following the temporary 2025 enforcement pause.

The Scoular resolution is regarded by practitioners as an important signal that, while the volume of FCPA cases has meaningfully declined compared to prior years, the DOJ remains willing to pursue serious, high-value bribery schemes particularly those implicating national-security-adjacent concerns such as cartel activity.

CUSTOMS

Regulatory Update

CBIC Extends Nil Customs Duty on Petrochemical Products to 15 July 2026

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, vide Notification No. 22/2026-Customs dated 30 June 2026, extended the Nil customs duty exemption available on 40 specified petrochemical products through 15 July 2026 (inclusive), by amending the sunset clause of the original Notification No. 12/2026-Customs, which had first granted the exemption with effect from 2 April 2026.

The amendment provides as follows:

• Continuation of the Nil effective customs duty rate on all 40 listed petrochemical products for a further period of fifteen days, from the originally notified expiry of 30 June 2026.

• Formal substitution of the sunset date in paragraph 2 of the principal notification, replacing the words "30th June, 2026" with "15th July, 2026."

• Issuance of the amendment under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the Central Government's satisfaction that the extension is necessary in the public interest.

• Continued applicability of the original exemption's terms and conditions, with only the temporal window being modified.

Importers of the specified petrochemical products consequently continued to benefit from the Nil duty rate through the extended window, providing short-term relief and predictability to the sector while the Government finalised its longer-term duty policy for these goods.

Notable Judgement

Hicure Pharmaceuticals v. Collector of Central Excise

In a ruling reported on 29 July 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that pharmaceutical samples removed by a manufacturer for in-house testing and for testing by outside laboratories are liable to excise duty where the manufacturer has failed to maintain the mandatory statutory records regarding the value and movement of such goods, dismissing the appeals filed by Hicure Pharmaceuticals and affirming the Karnataka High Court's earlier judgment on the point.

The dispute concerned pharmaceutical samples that were admittedly removed for both internal quality-control testing and testing by external laboratories, without the manufacturer maintaining the records of value and movement mandated under the applicable excise framework. The Karnataka High Court had held that this failure to maintain records justified the levy of excise duty on the samples so removed, notwithstanding the manufacturer's contention that such internal testing samples should not attract duty. The Supreme Court, dismissing the appeals against orders dated 18 August 2011 and 19 November 2011, found no good ground to interfere, observing that the undisputed factual position removal of samples for both categories of testing, coupled with the admitted absence of statutory records fully justified the confirmation of the excise duty levy.

Of wider procedural significance, the Court also clarified that disputes relating to the excisability of goods lie in appeal exclusively to the Supreme Court, and fall beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the High Courts reinforcing the specialised, centralised appellate route that Parliament has carved out for excise and customs-classification disputes within India's indirect tax framework, and providing useful guidance to practitioners on the correct forum for such challenges.

International Update

European Union — De Minimis Customs Duty Exemption Abolished

Effective 1 July 2026, the European Union abolished the long-standing €150 de minimis customs duty exemption for low-value consignments, as part of the most far-reaching reform of the EU Customs Union since 1968, following the political agreement reached by the European Parliament and Council on 26 March 2026.

The reform, as it takes effect, includes the following principal features:

• Complete abolition of the €150 de minimis exemption previously available for imports of low-value goods into the European Union, meaning that customs duty now becomes payable on such consignments from the very first euro.

• Introduction of a transitional flat duty of €3 per parcel, intended to apply as an interim, simplified measure until the EU Customs Data Hub becomes fully operational, a milestone currently projected for 2028.

• Continued embedding of the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which entered its definitive operational phase on 1 January 2026, into standard customs clearance workflows for all covered categories of imports.

The reform is expected to have a particularly pronounced impact on cross-border e-commerce platforms and their customers, given the historic scale of low-value parcel shipments that had previously entered the EU market duty-free under the now-abolished threshold.

CONSUMER

Regulatory Update

CCPA Fines SpiceJet ₹1 Lakh for Dark Patterns on Booking Platform

The Central Consumer Protection Authority, led by Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Anupam Mishra, imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on SpiceJet Ltd. in July 2026 for deploying deceptive design practices, commonly known as "dark patterns," on its flight-booking platform, in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023.

The CCPA's order identified the following specific practices:

• Pre-ticked enrolment - customers were automatically enrolled into the airline's "SpiceClub" loyalty programme through a checkbox that was pre-selected by default at the time of booking, requiring active de-selection to avoid enrolment.

• Presumed consent for marketing communications - customers were treated as having consented to receive promotional messages via SMS, WhatsApp and email, purely because the relevant default option had already been selected, without any affirmative action on the customer's part.

• Continued non-compliance following notice- even after the CCPA issued a notice regarding the checkbox practice, the airline reintroduced a pre-ticked checkbox for future promotional messaging in a modified form, rather than discontinuing the underlying practice altogether.

The Authority observed that such practices impair consumer autonomy, undermine informed decision-making, and are inconsistent with the principles of fair and transparent consumer engagement mandated under the 2019 Act. SpiceJet attributed the original issue to a "technical error" and was directed to furnish an undertaking confirming that the necessary corrective steps had been implemented and would be maintained permanently going forward.

Notable Judgement

Ajay Anant Dhurve & Anr. v. Kakade Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.

In an order passed on 14 July 2026 and reported on 17 July 2026, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Pune-based Kakade Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. to complete two long-pending flats in its "Kakade City" housing project at Hingane (Budruk), Pune, within three months, failing which the builder must refund the buyers' money together with 15% annual interest holding firmly that homebuyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of property they have already paid for.

The order, passed by a Bench comprising Justice Sudip Ahluwalia and Member Sadhna Shanker, partly allowed a consumer complaint filed by Pune residents Ajay Anant Dhurve and Renuka Ajay Dhurve, who had booked two flats in the project in 2006 nearly two decades before the order was passed for a total consideration of ₹37.99 lakh. The Commission found that despite the passage of almost twenty years since the promised date of possession, the builder had neither completed construction of the flats nor obtained the mandatory Occupancy Certificate required for lawful handover.

The Commission held that such prolonged failure to deliver possession within a reasonable period constituted both deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under consumer protection law. It directed Kakade Construction to obtain the Occupancy Certificate and hand over possession of both flats within three months from the date of the order; failing that, the builder was directed to refund the buyers' deposited amount of ₹3.01 lakh together with 15% annual interest, calculated from the respective dates of deposit until the date of actual payment. The Commission additionally awarded the complainants ₹50,000 towards litigation costs, sending a clear signal to developers that decades-long delays in possession will not be tolerated by consumer fora.

International Update

United States — FTC Finalises $4 Million Settlement Over Deceptive Height-Growth Supplement Claims

On 14 July 2026, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission issued a final order settling allegations against a dietary supplement company and its officers, resolving claims that the company had misled consumers by advertising one of its products as "clinically proven" to promote height growth in children and teenagers, without possessing the scientific evidence necessary to support such claims.

Key features of the settlement include:

• The underlying complaint, filed by the FTC in April 2026, alleged that the company amplified its unsupported clinical claims through the coordinated use of fake reviews and social media accounts, in violation of the FTC Act and the Commission's Consumer Review Rule.

• Under the terms of the final order, the defendants agreed to a $4 million judgment, together with broad injunctive relief prohibiting further unsupported health claims and requiring substantiation for any future clinical or scientific representations.

• The settlement forms part of a wider pattern of FTC enforcement activity through July 2026, which also included action against Genesis Tech a Cyprus-registered network of entities operating through Ukraine and Delaware-incorporated payment processors for allegedly deceptive subscription billing practices targeting U.S. consumers.

The action reflects the FTC's continued willingness to pursue deceptive advertising and fake-review enforcement even amid broader institutional uncertainty at the agency following the Supreme Court's June 2026 ruling permitting at-will removal of FTC Commissioners.

The content provided in this update is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or opinion. Lex Alliance, Advocates & Legal Consultants, will not be liable in connection with the use of this information without seeking appropriate legal counsel