B. Kaushik & Associates

14/06/2026

IPR Intellectual Property Copyright Case Law Knowledge Update : May 8, 2026 Vodafone Idea Limited Vs. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited Calcutta High Court A.O (COM) No. 17 of 2024 CS-COM 140 OF 2024 IA NO. GA-COM 1 OF 2024, GACOM 2 OF 2024, GA-COM 3 OF 2024

Conflict : Do the amendments introduced by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 allow IPRS to claim royalties in respect of the underlying musical and literary works in a sound recording when such sound recording is commercially exploited?

Section 19(10) of the Act of 1957 has specified that, no assignment of the copyright in work to make a sound recording which does not form part of the cinematograph film shall affect the right of the author of the work to claim an equal share of royalty and consideration payable for any utilization of such works in any form. Section 2(d) of the Act of 1957 has defined author to mean in relation to literary work, the author of the work; in relation to a musical work, the composer; and in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, the producer. Section 2(y) of the Act of the 1957 has defined work to mean, in the context of the present case, a literary work or musical work or a sound recording.

High Court opined that upon reading Section 18(1), 2nd and 3rd provisos, Section 19(10) and Sections 2(d) and (y') of the Act of 1957, grant of licence or any agreement entered into by the author of literary and musical works other than the assignment to their heirs or to a copyright society or a collecting society as the case may be, is void. The producer of a cinematograph film can play a cinematograph film at a cinema hall without being liable to pay any royalty to any of the authors of the literary or the musical works, if such producer has engaged them for the purpose of production of such cinematograph film. The entirety of the cinematograph film has to be played at a cinema hall for the producer of the cinematograph film not to be liable to pay to the authors of the literary and the musical works incorporated in such films. Any other method of use will attract the liability of payment of royalties to such authors. Any agreements contrary to the provisions of Section 18(1) and 19(10) are void by virtue thereof.

The Amendments to the Act of 1957 incorporated by the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012, have ushered in a paradigm shift in the rights of owners of literary and musical rights. They are now protected and entitled to receive royalties for the use of their literary and musical works incorporated in the sound recordings. This paradigm shift in the copyright of the musical and literary works embodied in the sound recording when, such sound recording is commercially exploited, has been recognized in (International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (ICSAC) vs. Aditya Pandey and Others), 2021 SCC OnLine Del (1).

High Court held that the amendments introduced by the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012 allow IPRS to claim royalties in respect of musical and literary works in a sound recording when such sound recording is commercially exploited.

14/06/2026

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India IBC 2016 Knowledge Update : Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has notified following amendments and formats under IBBI Regulations

IBBI Notifications dated 1st June, 2026:
i. IBBI (Information Utilities) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026
ii. IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026
iii. IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026
iv. IBBI (Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedure)(Amendment) Regulations, 2026
v. IBBI (Voluntary Liquidation Process) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2026
vi. IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2026
vii. IBBI (Bankruptcy Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2026
viii. IBBI (Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2026
ix. IBBI (Liquidation Process) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2026

IBBI Circulars dated 2nd June, 2026
 Formats under the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016
 Formats under the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016
 Formats under the IBBI (Voluntary Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017
 Formats under the IBBI (Bankruptcy Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019
 Formats under the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019
 Formats under the IBBI (Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolution Process) Regulations, 2021

IBBI Circulars dated 3rd June, 2026
 Formats under the IBBI (Information Utilities) Regulations, 2017
 Format for filing claims under Regulation 14 (3) of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017
 Format for filing complaint under Regulation 3(3) of the IBBI (Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulations, 2017

For details :

This is the Official Website of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India designed and developed by IBBI & hosted by National Informatics Centre (NIC).

07/06/2026

SEBI Stock Exchange Knowledge Update : Pronouncement April 28, 2026 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)

A monetary penalty was imposed for circumventing public issue norms by structuring a debt securities offering as private placement, failing to comply with disclosure and regulatory requirements under the Companies Act and SEBI regulations.

As per Section 42(2) of Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 14(2) of Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014, in case of Private placement of debt securities, any sale of securities to more than 200 persons will be deemed to be a public issue. Further, as per Section 25(2) of Companies Act, 2013, if the securities are sold to public within 6 months of allotment, then the original allotment of securities will be deemed to be a public issue. Therefore, reading Section 25(2) and Section 42(2) of Companies Act, 2013 with Rule 14(2) of Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014, it may be said that in case of private placement of NCDs when the allotment of securities is made to less than 200 persons and further the securities are down sold to more than 200 persons within 6 months of original allotment, than the original allotment will be deemed to be a public issue.

SEBI noted that the downselling of NCDs has led to circumvention of the norms of public issue wherein Noticee has not complied with provisions of Section 42 of (Chapter – III of Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) of Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 14(2) of Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014, Section 26(4) read with 2(70), 26(6) read with 26(1), 23(1) & 33(1) of the Companies Act 2013; Regulations 4(3), 6, 7, 8, 9 and 16 of the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations, 2008.

SEBI Order : In view thereof, after consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the matter available on record, the submissions made by the Noticee and in exercise of the powers conferred upon SEBI under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act read with Rule 5 of the SEBI Adjudication Rules, SEBI imposed a monetary penalty of INR 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) on the Noticee, under section – 15HB of SEBI Act, 1992.

For details:

04/06/2026

MCA ROC Compliance Alert : Filing of Form DPT-3 (Return of Deposits)

Applicability:- Every company other than Government company, NBFCs, Housing Finance Companies, and any other company notified by the Central Government.

Purpose:-

1. Onetime Return for disclosure of details of outstanding money or loan received by a company but not considered as deposits in terms of rule 2(1)(c) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 ;
2. Return of Deposit ;
3. Particulars of transactions by a company not considered as deposit as per rule 2(1)(c) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 2014 ;
4. Return of Deposit and Particulars of transactions by a company not considered as deposit.
According to Rule 16 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014, Annual Return is required to be filed for loan or advance outstanding amount as on 31.03.2026 (no matter when it was taken by the Company).

Mandatory for only those companies which are having outstanding balance as on 31.03.2026.

Please click on below link for Sample form DPT-3 and the notification mentioning the compliance.
http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/AcceptanceDepositsAmendmentRule_22012019.pdf

Due Date of filing :- 30th day of June every year.

Penalty :- Company referred under section 73(2) inviting deposits or any other person contravenes any provision of these the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and where the contravention is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day after the first day during which the contravention continues.

30/05/2026

MCA ROC LLP Compliance Alert : LLP Form 11 Annual Return Last date to file 30th of May.

29/05/2026

IBC 2016 Pronouncement February 27, 2026 Torrent Power Ltd (Appellant) Versus Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi & Others (Respondents) Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal Nos.11746-11747 of 2024 With Civil Appeal Nos.11689- 11690 of 2024,Civil Appeal Nos.12994-12995 of 2024

Crux : Predictability and Finality are Essential to Maintaining a Robust Insolvency Regime. Judicial Intervention beyond the narrow statutory confines undermines both Predictability and Finality

Brief Facts : The Resolution Plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors with the requisite majority and subsequently upheld by both the NCLT and the NCLAT. The unsuccessful resolution applicants being aggrieved by approached the Supreme Court seeking to reopen the commercial decisions of the Committee of Creditors taken during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Judgement:
From an institutional design point of view, the law must secure three interdependent economic freedoms viz. entry into the market, continuation of business operations under conditions of competitive neutrality, and exit from the market.

While easy entry and operation enable risk-taking and value creation, exit performs a critical function too by ensuring that failure, an inevitable byproduct of risk taking, is resolved efficiently rather than postponed indefinitely. An efficient insolvency resolution system performs an important allocative function: it preserves viable firms through timely reorganisation while ensuring swift liquidation and exit of non-viable businesses. Where insolvency laws are tardily enforced, viable firms are driven into failure, and non-viable firms are permitted to persist. For the longest time under Indian law, the freedom of exit remained under institutionalised. The enactment of the IBC was a decisive correction of this imbalance by introducing a predictable and time-bound mechanism for insolvency resolution. While predictability allows market participants to form stable expectations about enforcement outcomes, finality curtails strategic delay and rent-seeking, ensuring timely deployment of capital and labour into more productive use.

Further Court observed that predictability and finality are thus essential to maintaining a robust insolvency regime. Judicial intervention beyond the narrow statutory confines undermines both predictability and finality. Recognizing this, the IBC deliberately confines judicial review to strict statutory compliance under Sections 30(2) and 61(3). Respecting these limits will preserve the economic sense of the IBC and ensure that insolvency remains a predictable, time-bound, and market-driven process. With the above observations, the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed by the NCLAT is affirmed by the Supreme Court and consequently, the appeals are dismissed.

For details:

29/05/2026

Insolvency and Bankruptcy IBC 2016 Knowledge Update : Notification under sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026. (May 25, 2026)

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, the Central Government appoints the 26th day of May, 2026, as the date on which the following provisions of the said Act shall come into force, namely: –

1. sections 2 to 6 (both inclusive);
2. sections 8 to 33 (both inclusive);
3. sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) and clause (b) of section 34;
4. sections 35 to 39 (both inclusive);
5. section 41;
6. sections 43 to 44 (both inclusive);
7. section 46;
8. sections 48 to 59 (both inclusive);
9. sections 61 to 66 (both inclusive);
10. section 68;
11. clause (a) of section 69;
12. clause (a) of section 70;
13. sub-clause (i) to sub-clause (xxvi) of clause (b) of section 70 [Except subclause (xx) of clause (b) of section 70]; and
14. section 72.

For details :

23/05/2026

Insolvency And Bankruptcy IBC 2016 Case Law Knowledge Update : April 23, 2026 Anjani Technoplast Ltd {Appellant(s)} Versus Shubh Gautam {Respondent(s)} Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal No. 8247 of 2022 2026 INSC 410

Point of Conflict : Whether a decree-holder creditor could trigger the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under IBC merely to recover dues under a civil court decree.

Judgement : Hon’ble Apex Court inter alia observed that the legislative object of the IBC is well settled and requires no extended elaboration. The Code was enacted to provide for the reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons in a timebound manner for the maximisation of the value of assets. It is not a debt recovery legislation. This Court has held so in clear and express terms on more than one occasion. In Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17., while upholding the constitutional validity ofthe IBC,this Court explained the nature and object ofthe Code in paragraph 28 as follows :

“28. It can thus be seen that the primary focus of the legislation isto ensure revival and continuation of the corporate debtor by protecting the corporate debtor from its own management and from a corporate death by liquidation. The Code is thus a beneficial legislation which puts the corporate debtor back on its feet, not being a mere recovery legislation for creditors.

The interests of the corporate debtor have, therefore, been bifurcated and separated from that of its promoters/those who are in management…”

The above referred passage identifies the essential character of the IBC, whose purpose is the rescue and revival of the corporate debtor as a going concern. It is not a proceeding for the benefit of individual creditors seeking to recover their dues. The moratorium under Section 14 operates in the interest of the corporate debtor itself. The resolution process is not intended to be adversarial toward the corporate debtor but rather to be protective of its interests.

In another instance, a three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in GLAS Trust Co. LLC v. BYJU Raveendran (2025) 3 SCC 625., consolidated the position in paragraph 39.3 in the following terms :
“39.3. IBC must not be used as a tool for coercion and debt recovery by individual creditors. Improper use of the IBC mechanism by a creditor includes using insolvency as a substitute for debt enforcement or attempting to obtain preferential payments by coercing the debtor using insolvency proceedings.

That the mechanism under the IBC must not be used as a money recovery mechanism has been reiterated in a consistent line of precedent by this Court.”

Court said that this statement of the law is directly applicable to the present case. The respondent, holding a final decree and having the full machinery of civil ex*****on at his disposal, chose instead to invoke the insolvency jurisdiction. Such conduct is precisely what this Court in GLAS Trust (supra) has characterised as an improper use of the IBC using insolvency as a substitute for debt enforcement and as a means of coercing the corporate debtor into payment.

For Details:

13/05/2026

MCA ROC DIR 3 KYC Filing Update : The Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Amendment Rules, 2026 (April 22, 2026)

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) vide its notification G.S.R 300(E) dated April 22, 2026, has notified “the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Amendment Rules, 2026”, which has come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. The amendment revises Annexure, for item VII pertaining to Fee for Filing Form No. DIR-3 KYC Web under Rule 12A of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014.

Timely filing of Form continues to be NIL, but it introduces a new category of Rs. 500 per filing for subsequent changes made as per Rule 12A of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014.