October Newsletter
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
Regulatory Update
Government Raises EPFO Wage Ceiling to ₹25,000 under the Code on Social Security, 2020
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide Notification S.O. 5109(E) dated 17 September 2026, issued under clause (89) of Section 2 of the Code on Social Security, 2020, has raised the statutory wage ceiling for mandatory coverage under the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per month. The revised wage ceiling has come into effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette.
The notification provides for the following:
The statutory wage ceiling for mandatory EPFO coverage has been increased from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per month.
Employees drawing wages between ₹15,000 and ₹25,000 per month, who were previously outside mandatory EPFO coverage solely on account of the earlier wage ceiling, may now fall within the statutory framework, subject to the applicable provisions and scheme requirements.
The enhancement extends access to social-security benefits under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, Employees’ Pension Scheme and Employees’ Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme for eligible employees.
The revised ceiling is expected to bring approximately 51 lakh additional employees within the mandatory EPFO framework.
The enhancement represents the first revision of the statutory EPFO wage ceiling since September 2014 and marks a significant expansion of formal social-security coverage. For employers, the revised ceiling necessitates corresponding review of payroll, EPF enrolment and contribution-related compliance for employees falling within the enhanced threshold.
Notable Judgement
G.P. Sangeetha & Ors. v. State of Kerala
In a judgment dated 8 September 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered whether directly recruited Higher Secondary School Teachers (Junior) were entitled to the same pay scale as teachers appointed by transfer or promotion, where both categories performed identical duties and possessed similar qualifications. The dispute arose from the claim of directly recruited teachers in Government-aided schools in Kerala for parity in pay and allowances with teachers appointed through transfer or promotion.
The Supreme Court examined the application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution. The Court held that similarity in duties and responsibilities, by itself, does not establish an entitlement to identical pay. In determining pay parity, factors including experience, source of recruitment, qualifications, mode of appointment, responsibility and other relevant service conditions may constitute legitimate grounds for differentiation.
The Court observed that the teachers appointed by transfer or promotion had prior experience as full-time teachers in lower schools, whereas the directly recruited teachers entered service without equivalent prior teaching experience. The Court held that this difference in experience constituted a valid and intelligible criterion for differentiation in pay scales and had a rational nexus with the basis for the classification.
The Court accordingly upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and dismissed the appeals. It reiterated that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied mechanically on the basis of identical duties alone and that complete parity in all material factors is required before differential pay can be regarded as constitutionally impermissible.
The judgment is significant for employment and service jurisprudence as it reaffirms that prior experience and the mode of appointment may legitimately justify differences in pay, even where employees within the same cadre perform substantially similar functions. It provides useful guidance for employers and public authorities when structuring pay scales across different categories of employees.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1004
International Update
European Commission Adopts Fair Labour Mobility Package
The European Commission, on 15 September 2026, adopted the Fair Labour Mobility Package, introducing a set of measures aimed at facilitating labour mobility across the European Union while strengthening social-security coordination, enforcement and protection of workers' rights.
The package provides for the following key measures:
Introduction of a European Social Security Pass to enable workers and businesses to access and present social-security documents digitally.
Strengthening of the European Labour Authority's capacity to support cross-border inspections, cooperation and enforcement of applicable labour and social-security rules.
Simplification of procedures for the recognition of professional qualifications and skills across EU Member States.
Measures to facilitate recognition procedures for certain third-country professionals seeking to work within the European Union.
Enhanced mechanisms aimed at addressing social-security fraud, abuse and non-compliance in cross-border employment.
The adoption of the package represents a significant development in the European Union's approach to labour mobility, seeking to reduce administrative barriers to cross-border employment while strengthening enforcement and social protection. The measures are particularly relevant for businesses employing workers across multiple EU jurisdictions and for professionals whose employment or qualifications require recognition across Member States.
ARBITRATION
Regulatory Update
CORD Launches Rules 2.0 for Mid-Value Commercial Arbitration
The Centre for Online Resolution of Disputes (CORD), on 4 September 2026, launched CORD Arbitration Rules 2.0, introducing a revised institutional framework for mid-value commercial disputes. The Rules, effective from 4 September 2026, seek to improve predictability, accessibility and efficiency in institutional arbitration.
The revised framework provides for the following key features:
A tiered fee structure under which arbitrations are classified into three tiers based on dispute value and complexity, with arbitrator fees ranging from 60% to 140% of the Fourth Schedule rates under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Establishment of an Independent Appointments Council to oversee arbitrator appointments and challenges.
An opt-in appellate mechanism, allowing parties to agree to an institutional appeal against an arbitral award.
Introduction of provisions for emergency arbitration and consequences in costs for failure to comply with procedural deadlines.
An AI Practice Note governing the use of artificial intelligence in arbitral proceedings, including safeguards to ensure that AI assists the arbitral process without replacing human decision-making.
Greater emphasis on digital-first case management, with the framework designed to facilitate efficient administration of commercial disputes.
The launch of CORD Rules 2.0 represents a significant development in India's institutional arbitration landscape, particularly for mid-value commercial disputes that have traditionally received comparatively limited institutional attention. The framework seeks to combine greater cost predictability and procedural efficiency with safeguards for independence, appellate review and responsible use of artificial intelligence.
Notable Judgement
Union of India & Ors. v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant judgment dated 18 September 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether a High Court, while exercising its statutory appellate jurisdiction under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could remit proceedings arising from rejection of an application under Section 9 to a subsequently constituted arbitral tribunal and direct the tribunal to treat them as an application under Section 17 of the Act.
The dispute arose from a contractual disagreement between the Union of India and Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. concerning the provision of administrative and training infrastructure at NDA Khadakwasla. After the respondent's application under Section 9 seeking interim relief was rejected, an appeal was filed under Section 37. During the pendency of the appeal, an arbitral tribunal was constituted by consent of the parties. The High Court subsequently directed that the proceedings pending before it under Section 37 be remitted to the arbitral tribunal and treated as an application under Section 17.
The Supreme Court held that such a direction could not be sustained. The Court clarified that appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is vested in the Court and is distinct from the power conferred upon an arbitral tribunal under Section 17 to grant interim measures. An arbitral tribunal cannot exercise appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over an order passed by a competent Court under Section 9, and the statutory appellate proceedings cannot be converted into Section 17 proceedings merely with the consent of the parties.
The Court accordingly set aside the High Court's direction remitting the Section 37 proceedings to the arbitral tribunal. At the same time, it did not disturb the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and permitted the tribunal to adjudicate the substantive disputes between the parties, leaving both sides free to raise their contentions in accordance with law.
The judgment reinforces the distinct statutory roles of Courts and arbitral tribunals under Sections 9, 17 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It also clarifies that party consent cannot confer appellate jurisdiction upon an arbitral tribunal where such jurisdiction is statutorily vested in the Court.
International Update
United Kingdom— LCIA Commences the Next Phase of its Revision of Arbitration and Mediation Rules
On 11 September 2026, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) announced the formation of 13 committees to undertake the next phase of its revision of the LCIA Arbitration Rules and LCIA Mediation Rules. The committees have commenced reviewing submissions received during the first phase of the consultation process and will contribute to the development of the next edition of the Rules.
The revision process provides for the following key areas of review:
A Core Rules Steering Committee responsible for the architecture and final drafting of the revised Arbitration and Mediation Rules.
Review of electronic communications, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, data protection and confidentiality in arbitral proceedings.
Consideration of expedited arbitration, streamlined procedures and early determination mechanisms.
Review of provisions concerning emergency arbitration and interim and conservatory measures.
Reconsideration of rules relating to tribunal constitution, arbitrator challenges, independence, impartiality and tribunal secretaries.
Examination of joinder, consolidation, concurrent proceedings and other mechanisms for related disputes.
Review of arbitration costs, third-party funding, diversity, sustainability and institutional governance.
Consideration of the interface between arbitration and mediation, including settlement windows, referral mechanisms and med-arb or arb-med-arb procedures.
The committees' recommendations will inform draft versions of the revised LCIA Arbitration Rules and LCIA Mediation Rules, which are expected to be published for a further round of community feedback later in 2026. The revision reflects the LCIA's effort to adapt its institutional framework to developments in technology, cybersecurity, procedural efficiency, costs and the evolving needs of international dispute-resolution users.
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (IBC)
Regulatory Update
IBBI Issues Circular on Due Diligence to Prevent Misuse of the IBC Framework
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), vide Circular No. IBBI/CIRP/105/2026 dated 9 September 2026, has directed Insolvency Professionals (IPs) to exercise greater due diligence and remain vigilant against potential misuse of the insolvency framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The circular follows information received from law enforcement and regulatory agencies regarding instances where the IBC framework may have been invoked for purposes other than genuine insolvency resolution or liquidation.
The circular highlights the following areas requiring enhanced scrutiny:
Potential use of the insolvency process for mitigating tax liabilities or avoiding statutory dues.
Use of the IBC framework to facilitate closure or merger of companies without requisite regulatory scrutiny.
Initiation of insolvency proceedings with the objective of mitigating investigations, prosecution or penalties under other statutes.
Attempts to monetise or ring-fence assets through the insolvency framework for purposes unrelated to genuine insolvency resolution or liquidation.
Insolvency Professionals are required to remain vigilant regarding circumstances that may indicate that the insolvency process is being used for purposes other than those contemplated under the IBC.
The circular represents a significant step towards strengthening safeguards against the misuse of insolvency proceedings and reinforces the responsibility of Insolvency Professionals to conduct appropriate due diligence before and during the insolvency process. It also seeks to preserve the IBC as a mechanism for genuine insolvency resolution and liquidation, while ensuring that it is not used to circumvent regulatory, tax or enforcement proceedings under other laws.
Notable Judgement
M/s ASJ Finsolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Bajaj
In a judgment dated 28 September 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered whether the earnest money deposit (EMD) and other amounts deposited by a successful bidder in a liquidation auction could be forfeited when the bidder failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal arose from an NCLAT order upholding the forfeiture of the amounts deposited by the appellant after it failed to pay the balance consideration within 90 days.
The appellant had successfully bid for a property in Haryana having a reserve price of ₹25.56 crore. The e-auction notice required the successful bidder to make the stipulated payments within the prescribed timelines and expressly provided that the entire amount paid, including the EMD, could be forfeited if the successful bidder failed to pay the balance sale consideration in accordance with the terms of the sale. The appellant subsequently failed to make the required payment within the stipulated period and challenged the forfeiture.
The Supreme Court held that the terms and conditions of the e-auction notice expressly authorised forfeiture of the amounts paid by the successful bidder, including the EMD, upon failure to pay the balance sale consideration within the prescribed period. The Court noted that the appellant had voluntarily participated in the auction with knowledge of the terms and had deposited the required amounts without protest. Consequently, the Court found no basis to order refund of the forfeited amount.
The Court also considered the argument that Schedule I of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 limits the EMD to 10% of the reserve price. It observed that, in the present case, the EMD itself was ₹2.55 crore, representing 10% of the reserve price, while the additional amount formed part of the balance sale consideration. The Court therefore upheld the forfeiture in accordance with the express terms of the e-auction notice.
The judgment reinforces the importance of strict compliance with the terms of liquidation auctions and clarifies that a successful bidder who voluntarily accepts an express forfeiture clause cannot subsequently seek refund after defaulting on the stipulated payment obligations. It also provides greater certainty to liquidators and bidders regarding the consequences of failure to complete payment within the prescribed timeline.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR)
Regulatory Update
IP India Launches Geographical Indications e-Filing Portal
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), officially launched the Geographical Indications (GI) e-Filing Portal on 15 September 2026, on the occasion of GI Day. The launch was announced by IP India on 16 September 2026 and introduces an online platform for filing applications relating to Geographical Indications.
The initiative provides for the following key developments:
The new portal enables online filing of Geographical Indication applications, providing applicants and stakeholders with a streamlined digital platform for GI-related filings.
The portal is intended to make the GI filing process more convenient, accessible and user-friendly for applicants and other stakeholders.
Alongside the launch of the portal, IP India has published Draft Guidelines for Geographical Indications, providing guidance on various aspects of the GI registration process.
The new digital system forms part of IP India's broader efforts to digitalise intellectual property administration and facilitate electronic access to IP-related services. IP India's e-services platform now separately provides access to e-filing for Geographical Indications.
The launch represents a significant step towards the digitalisation of India's Geographical Indication registration framework and is expected to simplify the filing process for producer organisations, associations and other eligible applicants. The accompanying Draft GI Guidelines further seek to provide greater procedural clarity and support a more structured GI ecosystem in India.
Notable Judgement
I.S.D.S. Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd.
In an important order dated 21 September 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether a notification issued under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 designating a Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court could override the jurisdictional requirement under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which requires suits concerning trademark infringement and related reliefs to be instituted before a District Court or a court exercising equivalent jurisdiction
The dispute arose in Jharkhand, where a Civil Judge (Senior Division) had been notified as a Commercial Court with jurisdiction over commercial disputes within specified pecuniary limits. The appellants contended that permitting a Civil Judge to entertain trademark infringement proceedings would dilute the specific jurisdiction conferred upon District Courts under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. The Court noted the resulting difficulty concerning the appellate remedy available against orders of such a Commercial Court.
The Supreme Court considered the interplay between the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It observed that the Commercial Courts Act is a general legislation dealing with commercial disputes, while the Trade Marks Act specifically confers jurisdiction in respect of trademark infringement proceedings upon a District Court. The Court further noted that while the Commercial Courts Act permits constitution of Commercial Courts at the District level, the issue becomes contentious where a Civil Judge (Senior Division) is designated as a Commercial Court.
The Court also noted an apparent conflict between earlier decisions concerning the relationship between special statutes and the Commercial Courts Act. In view of the jurisdictional implications and the need for uniformity across States, the Court held that the matter required consideration by a Larger Bench. The Court accordingly directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders and stayed the Commercial Suit pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamshedpur.
The order raises an important question concerning the forum for institution of trademark infringement proceedings and the interaction between the Trade Marks Act and the Commercial Courts Act. Its reference to a Larger Bench may have wider implications for the constitution of Commercial Courts by State High Courts and the jurisdiction of Civil Judges to adjudicate intellectual property disputes..
International Update
UAE— Kuwait Trademark Office Updates Power of Attorney Legalization Requirements
The Kuwait Trade Mark Office (TMO), in September 2026, updated its requirements concerning Powers of Attorney (POAs) accompanying foreign trademark applications. Under the revised procedure, POAs for foreign trademark filings must now be fully legalized up to the Kuwait Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whereas previously the legalization chain ended at the Kuwaiti Embassy or Consulate in the applicant's country.
The revised requirements provide for the following:
Powers of Attorney accompanying foreign trademark applications must be legalized through the Kuwait Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The previous practice permitted the legalization process to conclude at the relevant Kuwaiti Embassy or Consulate abroad.
A fully legalized POA must be submitted within 90 days from the date of filing of the trademark application.
Applicants are therefore required to initiate the legalization process promptly after filing to ensure compliance with the prescribed 90-day period.
The change has reportedly been communicated by the Trademark Office as a procedural requirement rather than through a formal written circular, and applicants are advised to confirm the current requirements with local counsel at the time of filing.
The revised legalization requirement increases the procedural steps involved in securing trademark protection in Kuwait for foreign applicants. The shortened timeline for submission of the fully legalized POA also makes timely coordination between applicants, foreign authorities, the Kuwaiti diplomatic mission and local counsel particularly important.
WHITE COLLAR CRIMES
Regulatory Update
FIU-IND Issues PMLA Notices to 15 Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers
The Financial Intelligence Unit-India (FIU-IND), on 9 September 2026, issued notices to 15 Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDA SPs) for non-compliance with obligations under Section 13 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The action forms part of FIU-IND's compliance measures against VDA SPs found to be operating in India without adhering to the applicable anti-money laundering framework.
The action covers the following key developments:
Notices were issued to Weex, Blofin, Rezorex, Bitunix, DigiFinex, Toobit, XT.com, Latoken, WOO X, Pionex, ChangeNow, SimpleSwap, FixedFloat, WhiteBIT and Guardarian.
The Director, FIU-IND, also issued notices seeking the takedown of applications and URLs associated with these entities that were publicly accessible in India.
The takedown notices were issued in the capacity of FIU-IND as the nodal officer under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025.
VDA SPs operating in India, whether offshore or onshore, and undertaking specified activities such as exchange of virtual digital assets with fiat currencies, transfer of virtual digital assets, or safekeeping and administration of virtual digital assets, are required to register with FIU-IND as Reporting Entities.
The applicable AML/CFT obligations are activity-based and do not depend upon the physical presence of a VDA SP in India. Registered entities are required to comply with reporting, record-keeping and other obligations under the PMLA and the rules framed thereunder.
The action underscores the expanding enforcement of India's AML/CFT framework in the virtual digital asset sector and reinforces that offshore VDA platforms providing covered services to users in India may fall within the regulatory framework irrespective of their physical presence in the country. The simultaneous takedown action also demonstrates the increasing coordination between financial regulation and intermediary regulation in addressing non-compliant digital asset platforms.
Notable judgement
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sanjay Pandey & Anr.
In a judgment dated 23 September 2026, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court considered whether a bail order passed in connected proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) could be taken into account while deciding applications for regular bail in a CBI case arising from the same factual foundation. The proceedings concerned allegations of unauthorised interception, recording and examination of telephone calls of employees of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited through iSEC Services Pvt. Ltd.
The CBI had challenged the orders of the Special Judge granting regular bail to retired IPS officer Sanjay Pandey and former NSE Managing Director Chitra Ramakrishna. The CBI contended that the Special Judge had relied upon the earlier PMLA bail judgment without independently assessing the allegations and material in the CBI proceedings. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the PMLA proceedings and the CBI case arose from the same factual foundation and that the earlier judgment had examined the ingredients of the common predicate offences under the more stringent bail requirements of Section 45 of the PMLA.
The High Court held that while proceedings before the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate are legally distinct, a bail order passed in connected PMLA proceedings may constitute a relevant circumstance where both proceedings arise from the same factual foundation. However, such an order is neither binding nor conclusive upon the Court considering bail in the connected CBI proceedings. The Court must independently assess the material before it and the individual role attributed to each accused.
The Court further distinguished between a challenge to the correctness of an order granting bail and an application seeking cancellation of bail on account of subsequent events. In the former, interference is warranted only where the exercise of discretion is shown to be vitiated by perversity, illegality, non-application of mind, consideration of irrelevant material or failure to consider material circumstances. The Court found that the Special Judge had considered the CBI's objections, the common factual foundation, the nature of the alleged offences and the individual circumstances of the accused, and had not mechanically adopted the earlier PMLA judgment.
The Delhi High Court accordingly dismissed the CBI's petitions and declined to interfere with the regular bail granted to Sanjay Pandey and Chitra Ramakrishna. At the same time, the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail proceedings and directed the Trial Court to proceed independently and uninfluenced by the prima facie observations made in the PMLA bail judgment, the Special Judge's orders or the present judgment.
The judgment is significant in the context of white-collar and economic offences, particularly where parallel proceedings are initiated by different investigating agencies on the basis of the same underlying facts. It clarifies that findings in one proceeding may be relevant to bail in another connected proceeding, but cannot substitute the Court's independent assessment of the accused's role and the material available in the proceedings before it.
CUSTOMS
Regulatory Update
Government Revises Anti-Dumping Duty on Specified Jute Products from Bangladesh and Nepal
The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, vide Notification No. 24/2026-Customs (ADD) dated 24 September 2026, has further amended the anti-dumping duty framework applicable to imports of specified jute products originating in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal. The notification follows the Designated Authority’s final findings dated 25 June 2026 in the mid-term review of the anti-dumping duty imposed on these products.
The notification provides for the following:
The revised framework applies to jute yarn/twine, hessian fabric, jute sacking bags and jute sacking cloth falling under tariff headings 5307, 5310, 5607 and 6305.
The notification substitutes the existing table under Notification No. 33/2022-Customs (ADD) dated 30 December 2022, thereby revising the anti-dumping duty applicable to specified producers and products.
The revised duty structure specifies different duty amounts depending upon the product, country of origin, country of export and producer.
For several specified producers, the revised duty has been prescribed at rates ranging from USD 59 to USD 155 per metric tonne, while certain producer-product combinations have been assigned Nil duty.
The revised anti-dumping duty applies for the remaining period of imposition of duty under Notification No. 33/2022-Customs (ADD), subject to the terms of the notification.
The notification represents a significant development in India's trade-remedy framework for jute products and recalibrates the anti-dumping duty following the mid-term review conducted by the Designated Authority. The producer-specific structure is particularly relevant for importers, exporters and manufacturers dealing in jute products originating in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal, as the applicable duty will depend on the prescribed product and producer classification.
Notable Judgement
Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India & Anr.
In a significant judgment dated 2 September 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside a customs penalty of ₹425.27 crore imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, after finding that the adjudicating authority had relied upon non-existent judgments, fake citations and legal propositions that appeared to have been generated or hallucinated using artificial intelligence.
The case arose from an Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on the appellant for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as laboratory-grown diamonds with a view to paying a lower tariff. The Gujarat High Court subsequently dismissed the appellant's challenge to the penalty on 20 January 2026, following which the matter was brought before the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that several judgments and articles relied upon by the adjudicating authority had been generated using AI. The Court independently verified the material cited in the Order-in-Original and found that certain authorities were non-existent or carried fake citations, while some cases that did exist did not support the legal propositions attributed to them. The Court observed that the material appeared to represent an AI hallucination.
The Supreme Court emphasised that while AI may be used as an assistive tool to facilitate decision-making, it cannot substitute the independent application of mind required of an adjudicating authority. The Court cautioned that reliance upon unverified AI-generated legal material in adjudication is impermissible and held that such reliance was fatal to the sustainability of the penalty order.
The Court accordingly set aside both the Gujarat High Court's order and the Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 and revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication by an officer of the same rank, other than the officer who had passed the original order. The Court also left it to the appointing authority to consider whether any action was warranted against the officer who had authored the original order.
The judgment is significant for customs adjudication and the use of artificial intelligence in regulatory decision-making. It underscores that AI-generated legal research must be independently verified and that technological assistance cannot displace the adjudicator's statutory duty to apply independent judicial or quasi-judicial mind to the material before it.
International Update
WTO Panel Established to Review EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism
On 25 September 2026, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) agreed to establish a panel at the request of the Russian Federation to examine the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and an alleged export subsidy under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The dispute is registered as DS639: European Union and its Member States – Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.
The proceedings concern the following key issues:
Russia has challenged the EU's CBAM package, alleging that it creates significant trade barriers for goods covered by the mechanism.
Russia has claimed that aspects of the CBAM are inconsistent with various provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, among other WTO obligations.
The dispute also concerns an alleged export subsidy arising from the allocation of greenhouse-gas emission allowances under the EU Emissions Trading System.
The European Union has maintained that both CBAM and the ETS are consistent with WTO rules and has confirmed that it will participate in the proceedings.
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Norway, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the proceedings.
The establishment of the panel marks a significant development in the emerging interaction between climate regulation and international trade law. The dispute may have broader implications for the design of carbon border measures and the extent to which environmental objectives can be pursued through trade-related mechanisms while remaining consistent with WTO obligations.
CONSUMER
Regulatory Update
Government Amends E-Commerce Rules to Strengthen Consumer Protection
The Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, vide the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026, notified in September 2026, has amended the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 to strengthen consumer protection and enhance transparency and accountability in the digital marketplace. The amended Rules will come into force from 1 January 2027.
The amended Rules provide for the following key requirements:
Every e-commerce entity is required to become a partner in the convergence process of the National Consumer Helpline (NCH) to strengthen consumer grievance redressal.
E-commerce entities must provide consumers with a copy of complaints recorded by their grievance officers.
E-commerce entities shall not manipulate search results in a manner that misleads consumers or adversely affects the relevance of results to their search queries.
Sponsored listings must be identified through clear and prominent disclosures.
Where a price reduction is advertised, both the reduced price and the prior price must be displayed, with the prior price being the lowest price at which the product or service was offered during the preceding 30 days.
E-commerce entities must comply with the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, conduct an annual self-audit and prominently display a certificate of compliance.
Marketplace e-commerce entities must disclose key seller and product information, including best-before/use-before dates, return and refund policies, warranties, delivery information and payment details.
Consumer information cannot be used for specified purposes without express and affirmative consent.
Marketplace entities are restricted from imposing bundled fees for services unrelated to the e-commerce platform, subject to the specified exception for loyalty or membership programmes.
For imported goods, e-commerce entities must disclose the importer's details and country of origin.
The amendments represent a significant strengthening of India's regulatory framework for digital commerce, particularly in relation to algorithmic transparency, pricing practices, dark patterns, consumer data, seller disclosures and grievance redressal. The one-year transition period before the Rules come into force provides e-commerce entities with time to review and align their platforms, policies and compliance mechanisms with the enhanced requirements.
Notable Judgement
M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. M/s. Hemkund Duplex and Board Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant judgment dated 21 September 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered whether an insurer was justified in repudiating a ₹2.40 crore fire insurance claim on the ground of false declarations, discrepancies in stock records and breach of policy conditions. The dispute arose after a fire at the respondent's factory premises, following which the insurer rejected the claim based on the findings of the preliminary and final surveyors and the investigation conducted into the circumstances surrounding the fire.
The Supreme Court held that the insured had breached Policy Conditions Nos. 6 and 8, which required full and honest disclosure of relevant facts and prohibited false declarations. The Court also considered the evidentiary value of surveyor reports under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, observing that although such reports are not conclusive, they constitute important evidence and cannot be discarded without cogent reasons. The Court found substantial discrepancies in the insured's stock records and noted several suspicious circumstances concerning the fire, including the delay in informing the fire brigade and inadequate efforts to minimise the loss.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the NCDRC's order directing payment of ₹2.40 crore and upheld the insurer's repudiation of the claim. The judgment reiterates that policyholders are bound by contractual requirements of truthful disclosure and that material misrepresentations or false declarations made to substantiate an insurance claim may justify complete repudiation. It also underscores the importance of surveyor and investigation reports in consumer disputes concerning insurance claims.
International Update
United States — FTC Launches New Bureau of Consumer Protection Rule Guidance Program
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), through its Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP), on 10 September 2026, announced the launch of a new BCP Rule Guidance Program to provide businesses and other stakeholders with greater clarity regarding ambiguities and potential conflicts within the Commission's rules. The programme establishes a process through which stakeholders can submit questions concerning significant interpretive issues for consideration by the Bureau.
The programme provides for the following key features:
Stakeholders may submit questions concerning genuine ambiguities in FTC rules, substantive conflicts between a rule and an existing statute or another rule, and other significant issues requiring clarification.
Submissions will be made through an online form and reviewed by Bureau staff and the appropriate subject-matter teams.
Where the Bureau determines that a response is appropriate, the resulting guidance will be published publicly, allowing businesses and industry groups to benefit from the clarification.
The programme will not be used merely to restate existing regulatory requirements or to reduce a business's independent legal or compliance responsibilities.
The Bureau will not generally interpret established performance-based standards, such as “clear and conspicuous,” where the applicable meaning is already developed through case law.
Questions that can be answered through the FTC's existing plain-language guidance will also fall outside the programme's intended scope.
The initiative represents a significant development in the FTC's approach to regulatory clarity and consumer-protection compliance, particularly by creating a formal channel through which businesses can seek clarification on genuine interpretive issues. By making responses publicly available, the programme is also intended to promote greater transparency and consistency in understanding and complying with FTC requirements.
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
Comments