This article is written by Ambreen Imam, Legal Marketing Associate at LawSikho. She brings over four years of expertise in legal writing, content strategy, and marketing, with a parallel focus on technology and intellectual property. With a strong background in crafting thought leadership across IP, fashion, and tech law, she combines legal precision with creative industry insight.

Forget everything your college placement cell told you. 2025 isn’t about who topped the batch, but who read the room. If you’re not AI-literate, business-fluent, and online-visible, you’re already 5 steps behind. 

Introduction 

2025 isn’t just another year in the legal calendar, it’s a full-blown system reset. The Indian legal landscape is shapeshifting, and your next employer might care less about your GPA and more about your digital presence, niche exposure, or even your AI literacy. From foreign law firms finally eyeing India to law firms hunting for AI-literate lawyers who can bill and build brands, the rules of the game are changing. BigLaw is slowly morphing into BigTech. And no, it’s not just Delhi and Mumbai anymore, tier-2 cities are birthing powerhouses with global ambitions. 

If you’re a lawyer or a freshly minted graduate, you’re entering a battlefield in the middle of a rule rewrite. The jobs still exist, but the qualifications have changed. This isn’t your average LinkedIn “how to get into Tier-1 law firms” listicle. This is a fact-backed guide to the 10 actual trends that are going to shape Indian legal hiring in 2025. 

Trend #1: AI won’t replace lawyers, but lawyers who use AI will replace those who don’t 

According to the 2025 Report on the State of the Legal Market by Thomson Reuters, a transformative shift is already under way in the legal profession globally. U.S. firms are moving away from traditional models and leaning into tech investment, new business structures, and client-centric practices to stay relevant. Perhaps the most striking takeaway from the report: law firms must now function like businesses with scalable systems, not like insular institutions with prestige alone as their currency. Strategic investment in legal tech is now essential for long-term growth. The report emphasizes that generative AI’s impact will only deepen in 2025 and beyond. 

Clifford Chance, for instance, has rolled out its proprietary AI tool across departments. Meanwhile, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has declared its intent to become an “AI-first” firm, having chosen Legora as its generative AI platform after a multi-phase pilot program involving three AI tools and 380 lawyers across offices. Similarly, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co recently partnered with Harvey. IndusLaw and Veritas Legal are working with Jurisphere, ELP has adopted AI assistant Oliver by Vecflow,  Anagram Partners launched ‘Blueprint’ in collaboration with Olin.ai., S&R and Trilegal have adopted Lucio. The list goes on. In short, AI won’t take your job, but someone who can work better with it absolutely will. 

Therefore, being AI-literate is no longer optional. Learn prompt engineering, take courses on legaltech via Coursera or LawSikho. Understand where tech meets law and build a hybrid skillset. In 2025, knowing how to use AI may matter more than your GPA (or your NLU status). 

Trend #2: Global FTAs Will Reshape Hiring Across Cross-border M&A, PE & International Trade 

India’s bilateral trade with the UK is set to double from USD 56 billion, that means twice the deal flow, twice the documentation, and twice the legal oversight. This deal is going to blow open the hiring floodgates for Indian law firms, especially in cross-border M&A, private equity, and trade compliance. And if the India-US deal follows suit? We’re looking at a decade-defining shift in the Indian legal job market.  

Source:

FTAs aren’t just about trade; they’re legal infrastructure in motion. Every deal, every joint venture, every tariff removed creates a legal ripple. You need regulatory experts, cross-border negotiators, IP strategists, dispute resolution experts; and you needed them yesterday. 

Indian law firms will ramp up specialized hiring across M&A, international trade, and compliance teams. And this won’t just be at the senior partner level. A sharp rise is expected in mid-tier lateral roles, especially for lawyers who come with cross-border deal experience or regulatory expertise. There will also be rising demand for lawyers fluent in UK law, WTO frameworks, and ESG mandates, especially with India’s pitch as a “values-led” trade partner. 

And hiring will be decentralized. Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities will benefit too. SMEs entering global trade lanes will need local legal counsel with global acumen. 

Trend #3: Indo-US Tariffs & The Next Legal Hiring Boom  

If you’re building a legal team for 2025, forget the status quo. It’s time to think in war rooms.
The latest shockwaves from Washington-25% tariffs slapped on India, paired with a headline-grabbing oil deal between the U.S. and Pakistan, are more than just bluster. They signal a shifting fault line in global diplomacy, one that Indian law firms can’t afford to ignore.  

Source:

Public International Law and Cross-Border Arbitration are about to go mainstream.
Up until now, these fields were niche and reserved for high-stakes sovereign disputes or rare treaty violations. Trade lawyers, international arbitrators, and WTO-savvy counsel are going to be in demand like never before. Not just in Delhi or Mumbai, but across rising Tier-2 hubs where exporters, logistics firms, and manufacturing SMEs are quietly plugging into global value chains.  

With the India-U.S. relationship under strain and Pakistan suddenly back in Washington’s economic lap, the next legal landmine won’t just be fought in courts, it will be arbitrated behind closed doors in Singapore, London, or The Hague. 

This changes how firms hire. 

WTO exposure, UK law training, BIT arbitration experience which were once seen as academic or CV padding are now market differentiators. If you’ve worked on even one sovereign dispute or understand treaty interpretation beyond theory, you’re in demand. Lawyers who bring this hybrid fluency are being fast-tracked not because firms suddenly care about geopolitics, but because their clients do. 

And for young lawyers or mid-level associates who are wondering where to place their next bet, here’s your answer: stop chasing only domestic litigation or gen-corp teams. Start tracking deals that involve trade corridors, ESG-linked financing, or export controls. That’s where you’ll find the new work.

Trend #4: Foreign Firms Are Here, But They’re Not Hiring How You Think 

The Bar Council of India’s March 2023 notification has marked a significant shift in the Indian law landscape. For the first time, foreign law firms are officially permitted to practice in India, but only on foreign and international law matters, and strictly under a reciprocity-based registration regime.  

Compared to jurisdictions like Singapore which actively integrates foreign firms through Joint Law Ventures or Japan (where foreign lawyers can form multi-national practices), India’s regime remains cautious and confusing and is still grappling with regulatory clarity, as seen in the introduction and hasty withdrawal of the Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025. Yet the shift is undeniable. Foreign firms are no longer just observing, they are actively assessing talent pipelines. They’re not focused on hiring interns or fresh law graduates based purely on class ranks. What they’re looking for are lawyers who understand cross-border regulatory architecture, BIT frameworks, FDI structures under FEMA, and who can advise clients across jurisdictions.  

If your legal training only stops at Indian law, you’re already behind. What you can do now? Start by understanding the nuances of India’s foreign direct investment (FDI) policy, the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) regime, and comparative foreign legal frameworks. Track how jurisdictions like China, Singapore, and Japan have smoothly integrated liberalized legal markets while preserving their sovereignty. 

Trend #5: Tier-2 Cities Emerge as the New Frontiers of Indian Law 

The legal industry in India is witnessing a measured, yet unmistakable decentralisation. While metro cities like Delhi and Mumbai have long served as the centres for corporate and transactional law, the emergence of Tier-2 cities such as Ahmedabad, Kochi, Bhubaneswar, and Chandigarh has begun to recalibrate where the future of legal talent and business lies. These cities are no longer auxiliary to the metros; they’re becoming strategic destinations in their own right. 

The shift is partly infrastructural and partly economic. Improvement in digital court access, enhanced connectivity, and regional regulatory developments have turned cities like Indore and Lucknow into litigation hubs. Fintech regulation, IP-intensive industries, and even Arbitration practices are seeing the rise of high-calibre boutique firms, many of which are founded by former Tier-1 partners or seasoned counsels returning to their hometowns to tap into local markets. Notably, law firms like ELP, Khaitan & Co. and Desai & Dewanji have made conscious advances into cities like Pune and Jaipur, anticipating long-term client base expansion, proximity to manufacturing corridors, and the availability of cost-effective legal talent. 

This recalibration isn’t just limited to geography. Clients, especially mid-sized enterprises and family offices, are increasingly seeking highly specialised counsels rather than paying a premium for full-service law firms. The result? A flourishing class of small to mid-sized firms and chambers offering specialised legal services in IP, fintech, and white-collar crime. 

In a market increasingly defined by agility, depth of expertise, and proximity to clients’ evolving needs, the rise of Tier-2 cities signals more than just decentralisation, it signals a quiet but powerful redistribution of legal influence across the country.

Trend #6: Not All Legal Careers Begin at SAM

BigLaw has defined success in India for years. Prestige, power and stable paychecks! That was the dream. At least, that’s what we thought. But in 2025, that narrative is shifting. According to Vahura data shared with Mint, fewer than 2% of fresh law graduates join India’s top law firms, while approximately 15–20% begin their careers at boutique or specialised mid-tier firms. This shift is no accident. Many Big Law firms now prefer to hire laterally from boutique setups after lawyers have gained focused niche expertise and not freshers who have just graduated unless it’s a PPO. Boutique firms specializing in areas like fashion law, sports IP, crypto regulation, fintech or ESG are redefining the early-career lawyer’s path. These firms, though smaller in size, offer distinctly impactful work with simpler hierarchies and a breathable work environment.

According to a 2024 Vault article referencing a NALP survey, 60% of junior associates reported valuing “meaningful work” and “reasonable hours” more than the firm’s reputation. This aligns with the recent observed hiring changes, i.e, many top firms now prefer hiring lateral talent with domain-specific expertise rather than freshers. Mid-sized and boutique firms have used this to their advantage. They are growing their brand value through specialization and are attracting better-suited candidates at lower overheads. 

Boutique and mid-sized firms led by former Tier‑1 lawyers are now filling partner-track roles more aggressively. With lower billing costs, these firms offer competitive compensation without sacrificing depth. Rather than navigating long associate pipelines at a large firm, you could be owning a legal vertical say luxury fashion IP or blockchain compliance within two-three years.  

Trend #7: Your Firm’s Not a Family and Now Lawyers Know It 

For decades, the unspoken deal was to grind it out for 12–15 years at a top law firm, and maybe just maybe, you’ll make partner. But that equation is being torched by a generation of lawyers who no longer romanticize such long-term & uncertain relationships. 

They’re not giving their youth, sanity, or identity to a single firm anymore and certainly not in blind hope of some future reward. They’re playing smart, moving laterally, joining startups, building personal brands, and yes, fearlessly walking out when they’re not valued. 

The NALP Foundation’s 2024 Stay Study (US-based but globally relevant) confirms the shift. While salary still matters, the top reasons for leaving firms include lack of career clarity, poor work-life balance, and toxic work cultures. Meanwhile, Indian attrition rates are estimated at 25–33%, a silent exodus that law firms don’t openly talk about, but feel every quarter when associates resign quietly or ghost exit interviews.  

The traditional law firm ladder is cracking. In its place is a zig-zag path where agility, upskilling, and freedom trump tenure. Established firms might grumble but what choice do they have? 

Hiring is no longer just about attracting talent. It’s about retaining it. In 2025, law firms won’t just need talent acquisition teams. They’ll need talent retention teams. Because if they can’t answer why someone should stay beyond 2 years, the best lawyers will already be looking elsewhere. 

Trend #8: The Data Law Hiring Surge: Privacy Is No Longer a Niche 

With the Digital Personal Data Protection Act officially in force, India has entered a new era of tech regulation. The Act applies to nearly every business processing personal data and introduces high penalties, strict consent requirements, and executive accountability. For legal teams, this marks a shift from occasional policy updates to full-time risk mitigation. The market has already started reacting. Top firms are fast-tracking internal training, while data-heavy sectors like fintech, edtech, and health tech are quietly poaching lawyers who understand privacy and data structures. Law firms are now building dedicated data law verticals, and even IP and disputes teams are being pulled in to draft privacy notices, respond to access requests, and advise on cross-border data transfers. 

What does that mean for hiring in 2025? Lawyers trained in data protection law, consent management systems, and cross-border data transfer regimes aren’t just expensive hires, they’re strategic power centers. Firms not actively building or hiring for privacy talent are seeing clients shift to digital-first boutiques that are into GDPR, DPDP, and vendor audits. Recruitment is shifting from “find someone who can learn privacy” to “hire someone who knows it.” 

If you’re a law firm with global clients or high-volume digital mandates, stop postponing your data law strategy. Build or poach a bench of privacy experts now. For law grads and lawyers, specializing in privacy compliance, risk governance, or cross-border data law is no longer optional, it’s your best hedge. Get in early or get left behind. 

Trend #9: The Rise of Allied Professionals in Indian Law Firms 

For decades, the phrase “non-lawyer” has been the polite slur for an entire class of professionals working in the background of India’s legal industry. In 2025, that narrative is finally being challenged. Law firms are no longer just hiring lawyers. They’re hiring strategists, legal technologists, AI operations leads, business development professionals, content creators, marketing heads, community builders, innovation managers, contract automation consultants, and more. And this isn’t a fringe trend, it’s a structural realignment of how legal businesses are run. 

The shift is being driven by three realities: 

• Client expectations have changed. Law firms are under pressure to operate like high-functioning corporations: data-driven, digitally enabled, brand aware. 
• Technology is non-negotiable. AI adoption, compliance automation, and digital workflows demand specialized skills no JD can teach. 
• Retention is in crisis. Younger lawyers are rejecting rigid hierarchies and opaque culture. They want impact-driven, hybrid roles. Firms that won’t evolve are watching top talent leave. 

And let’s be clear: this isn’t about token hires. It’s about rethinking the essence of legal teams. Across BigLaw, litigation chambers, IP firms, and legal startups, allied professionals are being brought in not just to support but to lead.

A 2024 exposé titled “Unseen, Unheard: The Invisible Struggle of Non-Lawyer Professionals in Indian Law Firms” laid the truth about the extent of this inequality. What was once said in work WhatsApp groups is now out of the closet: the legal industry has a class problem and let’s be real, we all know it. 

But this will be changing in 2025. Legal businesses that cling to old hierarchies are losing ground. Firms with multi-disciplinary teams, hybrid hiring models, and flat structures are attracting better clients, stronger partnerships, and the next generation of legal minds. 

For fresh law grads and lawyers, the message is clear: you don’t have to practice law to build a meaningful career in it. India is witnessing a boom in non-traditional legal careers, where your skills in storytelling, product thinking, UX, design, operations, analytics, networking and social media are not just welcomed, they’re being valued. 

Indian law firms must abandon the outdated “non-lawyer” label and embed structural inclusivity into every layer of hiring and leadership. That means performance bonuses, career tracks, and decision-making power for allied professionals in business, tech, marketing, and innovation roles.  

Firms must end the archaic, elitist gatekeeping that defines India’s legal hiring especially the Tier 1 obsession with NLU degrees and litigation pedigrees. This narrow recruitment culture is not just outdated; it’s actively sabotaging the new generation’s capability, room for innovation and client outcomes. In a global, tech-driven legal market, firms that continue to ignore talented professionals from non-NLU backgrounds, and experts from adjacent industries will lose out on clients and credibility. The future legal workforce that we are looking at is interdisciplinary, remote-ready, and custom made for the real legal world and not just rank holders. Firms that refuse to evolve will not be elite for long, they’ll actually be irrelevant. 

Trend #10: Visibility Is Currency: How Your Digital Footprint Is Your New CV 

If you’re still sending cold emails, waiting on HR replies, or refreshing “Careers” pages? That’s actually very 2015 of you. Hiring in 2025 is brutal: unemployment’s rising, inboxes are overflowing, and yes, you’re competing with 300+ other applicants for a single opening. 

Visibility is currency. Legal aspirants today must go beyond well-structured resumes and predictable LinkedIn updates. The new-age hiring funnel begins on social platforms and ends in cold DMs, viral comment sections, and newsletters.  

Here’s what they won’t tell you:  

• Your CV might never be seen by human eyes. Over 60% of mid and top-tier Indian law firms now use ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems), filtering out resumes that lack keyword optimization, structure, or even basic formatting. If your CV looks pretty but isn’t machine-readable? Sorry but it’s getting ghosted. 
• Video CVs aren’t cringe. They’re your new elevator pitch. With async hiring on the rise, firms want to hear your tone, clarity, and thought process. A tight 60-second “Why Me” video can do what 4 pages of bullet points can’t. 
• And the wildest shift? People are being hired from DMs. LinkedIn comments & Insta replies, those who show up in the right places, with the right voice, are landing interviews before their CV ever hits an inbox and not the ones hiding behind, yet another generic ChatGPT cover letter. It’s not just about being qualified. It’s about being visible when it counts.  

Hiring in 2025 isn’t about formality. It’s about frequency, finesse, and being findable. The question is no longer “Are you applying?” it’s “Are you being noticed?” 

Conclusion 

2025 would see the much-needed change in the legal industry. The firms that win will be those that evolve, decentralize, digitize, and humanize. The lawyers who rise will be fluent in AI, geopolitics, tech law, and personal branding. And the students waiting for campus placements? They’ll be outpaced by the ones who build visible, versatile, cross-disciplinary careers. 

The old metrics of prestige and pay are no longer enough. Associates are no longer afraid to walk. Gen Z lawyers are choosing autonomy over all-nighters, growth over glass doors, and visibility over vague promises of partnership. They’re moving laterally, building niche practices, going in-house, and even launching their own firms. 

The Indian legal hiring market isn’t broken, it’s rebuilding. But it won’t look like the one your seniors walked into. And that’s your edge, if you’re paying attention. 

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack

This article is written by Priyanka Mandhani, a qualified Corporate Lawyer and a Company Secretary, and the Founder of Juris Summit. She specialises in corporate law, compliance and contract advisory for startups and businesses across jurisdictions. With experience in Indian and US legal systems, her work focuses on aligning legal strategy with commercial outcomes.

Getting started 

Nowadays, Indian companies are not only functioning in India but also beyond borders. But this international expansion sometimes creates difficulties in tough times. It gets quite tough when companies get into any financial trouble, and the assets are scattered across multiple countries, and every country has its own legal system.  

What happens in this case? The creditors, employees, and investors sitting in a dozen different countries are going to be affected by this. This is a reality of cross-border insolvency and is challenging. The company that manages to overcome this situation wins the investors’ trust. But who fails? This is like losing a race in the global market.   

In this global race, is India capable enough to handle these types of mess? Are the Indian law (Indian Bankruptcy Code 2016) and courts ready to handle the disputes that involve cross-border assets and creditors? Or to meet the international standards, is there a need for a strategy change?    

Let’s find out. 

Understanding the cross-border gap in the IBC 2016

Aspirations without any Implementation

What came with IBC when it was introduced in 2016?

An order and certainty to handle domestic insolvency cases. But there was a legislative gap in the cross-border insolvency part.  

Yes, it does mention international cooperation under Sections 234 and 235. But these are more like wishful promises than actual working mechanisms. One authorises the central government to make an agreement with foreign countries to enforce the IBC there (S. 234). And the other one allows the resolution professionals to receive letters of request from foreign courts. This assists in dealing with the overseas assets of the corporate debtors (S. 235).

Looks fine on the paper. But in reality, no bilateral agreement exists.

So the fact is that these provisions just exist, but are of no practical use. When any company with foreign investors and assets abroad is in trouble, then the resolution professionals and courts find it difficult to work without any practical tools. 

The absence of COMI and its repercussions 

One of the trickiest parts is that we lack a clear and formal concept of the Centre of Main Interest (COMI). This works like an anchor that decides which country has the primary jurisdiction in such cases. So COMI is a big deal in cross-border bankruptcy systems.   

But there is no statutory definition of COMI in India. No clear rules and no settled interpretation. So our courts are left navigating uncharted water when any case comes up. This often results in competing claims of jurisdiction and legal confusion. 

What is the fallout? 

When there are multiple countries running their own insolvency process at the same time, it results in higher litigation costs, delays and unpredictable results. 

Jet Airways: a groundbreaking protocol

This issue didn’t just stay within our borders, and quickly turned into a full-blown cross-border legal battle in 2019. The proceedings were running in India and the Netherlands simultaneously.  

But what actually happened?

To start the bankruptcy proceedings of Jet’s overseas operations, the creditors approached the Dutch court. While in India, the domestic Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was being managed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The powers of the Dutch bankruptcy trustee were not recognised by the NCLT. It actually refused to recognise their powers. It pointed out that IBC has no clear legal provisions that formally allow it to recognise foreign proceedings or representatives. 

NCLAT’s Landmark judgement

But then came a historical twist.

NCLT’s landmark judgement was a game-changer. It was the very first time a cross-border insolvency process was approved that allowed the Indian resolution professional and the Dutch trustee to work together. 

The Sections we discussed above, S. 234 and S. 235, are more aspirational than functional. Also, India hasn’t adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on cross-border insolvency. This gap was filled by the sheer level of creativity of NCLT.   

Here is what it did.

India was recognised as the COMI by the Tribunal while granting partial recognition to Dutch proceedings as a “non-main” proceeding. In simple words, it means that Indian proceedings were primary, but Dutch proceedings had legal standing.

It was the very first time in the legal history of India that a foreign insolvency administrator’s jurisdiction was recognised within an Indian insolvency case. 

Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order

The aftermath was not that smooth. While the case showed that judicial diplomacy can be used by the Indian courts to make cross-border insolvency work, even without a proper legal framework. But it was risky to rely completely on judicial patchwork instead of solid legislation.

The so-called ‘Jet Protocol’ became a symbol of what social pragmatism could achieve in a globalised financial world. But the revival plan fell apart soon. The Jalan-Kalrock Consortium failed to meet the key conditions. This was picked to rescue the jet.

Despite repeated extensions, the most-awaited first tranche payment of ₹ 350 crore never came. The consortium also attempted to alter its performance guarantee, rasing serious concerns about intent.    

Pointing out the repeated defaults, bad faith and abuse of procedural flexibility, the Court ordered liquidation on November 7th, 2024. The Court reiterated that IBC’s purpose is deliver speedy resolution and maximise value. 

Using its special power under Article 142, the Court also recommended organisational changes, CoCs need to put decision reasons on record, an oversight committee shall enforce binding guidelines of CoC behaviour, NCLT orders should have implementation milestones spelt out, and tribunal infrastructure needs to be immediately strengthened with additional members and technological advancements to avoid future delays.

Group insolvency & international assets: Videocon & others

The approach of India regarding cross-border bankruptcy should also pay special attention when the discussion is regarding group insolvency, as there are many businesses which are operating across different countries. There is a famous example of a case, State Bank of India v. Videocon Industries Ltd (2018), in this case the first substantive consolidation allowance was provided by the court under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). This judgment helped in creating a judicial pathway for group insolvency long before India had introduced a legal framework for that. 

The NCLT decision

It was requested by a group of lenders for the merger of 13 Videocon Group companies, where each company was undergoing its insolvency process. These companies were all linked through shared liabilities, common promoters and strong independence. It was observed by the NCLT that these are not separate businesses that are running different and separate CIRPs, and such a thing would create confusion, make the process inefficient and lower the value. 

Keeping this issue in mind, the tribunal ordered a combined CIRP. The tribunal directed that there should be the appointment of one common Committee of Creditors (CoC), one Resolution Professional (RP), and the merging of liabilities and assets of all the companies. Most important to be kept in mind is that the NCLT also included gas assets as well as Videocon’s foreign oil, which was held in overseas subsidiaries, which is a part of the consolidated debtor’s estate.

Challenges 

This move, while aimed at value maximisation, raised profound cross-border legal challenges. Can Indian insolvency orders be enforced abroad, particularly in jurisdictions with their own insolvency frameworks and property regimes? Without bilateral treaties (under S. 234 and S. 235) or a codified cross-border mechanism, such orders have limited extraterritorial enforceability.

Globally, courts have addressed similar issues. In the US, Courts allow consolidation when entities operate as a unified whole, as in re Bonham, Genesis Health Ventures, and Owens Corning. The core principle: economic reality must prevail over corporate form when separateness is abused or inefficient.

Foreign creditors under India’s insolvency regime: Progress or tokenism?

Statutory inclusion of creditors under the IBC

Inclusion of foreign creditors under the IBC regime is a development, but far from universal. The IBC defines a “person” under Section 3(23) to explicitly include those “resident outside India,” and this definition carries through into the classification of both financial and operational creditors under Sections 5(7) and 5(20). In principle, this implies that foreign creditors ought to have access to the same recourse as their Indian counterparts. But principle and practice are not always so easy to bridge.

The Macquerie Bank ruling: Allowing foreign creditors into the market

The Apex court in the Macquarie Bank v. Shilpi Cable Technologies (2018) ruling cleared up a major hurdle for foreign creditors. The major issue was whether a certificate of an Indian-recognised “financial institution” is to be provided by a creditor under S. 9 (3) of IBC. 

It was a yes by the NCLT and NCLAT. Macquarie, a Singaporean bank, was disqualified for lacking the certificate after issuing the demand letter and starting CIRP.  But the Apex Court had a more practical view. The requirement was not mandatory but directory, as the Court ruled. It made sure that the international creditors are not blocked because of the technicalities. 

The bigger problem hasn’t gone away. Foreign stakeholders are still stuck in the procedural obstacle because the IBC does not automatically recognise foreign insolvency judgements. With no bilateral treaties and no comprehensive cross-border framework, everything ends up depending on ad hoc court discretion.  

Cross-border fallout from the Bhushan Power & Steel case

In Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel (2025), the Supreme Court overturned JSW Steel’s court-approved and completely implemented resolution plan for Bhushan Power due to major procedural irregularities. Despite the fact that the plan had been carried out over three years, including the injection of foreign money and payments to creditors, the Court ordered liquidation and the restoration of disbursed funds. 

Impact on foreign investors and local markets

The transaction had numerous cross-border stakeholders and foreign finance mechanisms, making the decision highly unsettling for international investors.

Do you know the international reaction? Foreign investors have marked India as a “high-risk” jurisdiction for the enforcement of insolvency. Their fundamental anxiety is not about the substantive result but about the unpredictability of judicial intervention, long after a resolution plan is approved and implemented. 

What has the Bhushan Power case uncovered? Even when stakeholders act as per the commercial and regulatory environment, failures due to resolution professionals or the CoC can retroactively deconstruct transactions. 

Concerns surrounding institutional accountability

The absence of institutional accountability, more specifically for the function of adjudicating authorities and professionals engaged, overburdens the resolution applicants and creditors disproportionately. 

Judicial unpredictability, particularly in the implementation of resolution plans that are fully executed, gravely erodes India’s reputation for credibility on cross-border insolvency issues. Reforms in law and regulation have to tackle this fault line so that the IBC comes to be a mechanism that not merely resolves distress efficiently but also generates confidence among global financial stakeholders.

What is stopping India from adopting UNCITRAL for cross-border insolvency?

Redundant approach to Internationalisation legal harmonisation

When it comes to adopting the UNCITRAL law on cross-border insolvency, India has been dragging its feet. A draft framework was recommended based on the Model Law by the Insolvency Law Committee in 2018. But years later, it is still sitting on the shelf. On the other hand, other countries like the USA, the UK and Singapore have already integrated the Model Law in their domestic system.

Why is India hesitant?  

A lot of it comes because of the sovereignty concerns. The fear is that if we let the foreign courts or administrators in, then it might dilute the domestic control. Concerns are also related to the fact that India does not have reciprocal enforcement agreements with other countries yet. 

But where companies are running in countries and capital is flowing easily across borders, these have started to look outdated. India needs to start aligning with international standards if it wants to position itself as a serious global financial hub, as it may not remain an option for long.

Dependence on reciprocal treaties that are non-operative in nature

India’s current mechanism is built based on S. 234 and S. 235. These Sections allow cooperation with foreign jurisdictions through reciprocal treaties, on paper. What is the actual problem? None of these treaties is actually in force today.

So what does this mean in practice?

Lots of uncertainty. There is no clear path for foreign creditors and insolvency professionals who want to participate in Indian proceedings. 

This lack of a functional legal mechanism creates delays, confusion and risks. At a time when global confidence is critical, there is no reliable way for the foreign insolvency proceedings. India risks being seen as a difficult jurisdiction to do business. 

Speculations surrounding India’s competitiveness as an investment location

Failure to have a globally accepted cross-border structure undermines India’s intentions to emerge as a capital competitive location. Conversely, embracing the Model Law would simplify foreign proceeding recognition, facilitate coordinated multinational resolutions, and enhance India’s international market credibility. 

Reform here is not just legal tidying up it is vital to making it easier to do business and building India’s financial stability. While India invites foreign investment, it needs to prove that its laws are able to deal with cross-border distress with transparency and predictability.

Comparison with UK and US models

There is no formal recognition of foreign proceedings, and also no clear set of rules on who gets paid first. Concurrent liquidation in different countries ends up slicing updates into pieces and reducing overall recovery. 

In contrast, the UK and the US have already adopted the UNCITRAL Law. Their systems provide creditors with uniform standards of recognition, automatic stays and strong judicial cooperation.

India, on the other hand, is still stuck with a patchwork approach. This does not provide the same assurances. IBC needs to evolve into a framework closer to the Model Law, that cuts down on multiple proceedings, brings transparency and grows investor confidence in these cases.     

Until that happens, India’s regime will remain weak, eroding asset value and investor trust in an increasingly interconnected economy.

Recommendations and roadmap for reforms

Adopting the UNCITRAL model law via “Part Z” amendments

The regimen of cross-border insolvency in India is bogged down by ad hoc judicial solutions and unpredictability, discouraging international investors. To correct this, India needs to pass “Part Z” of the IBC to unambiguously adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Creating Cross-Border Facilitation Offices

Legislation has to be complemented by bilateral treaties in the central jurisdictions (Singapore, UK, US) to ensure mutual recognition and enforcement of insolvency orders and coordinate concurrent proceedings- preventing asset fragmentation and creditor conflict like Jet Airways. Enacting these reforms needs a Cross-Border Facilitation Office(CFO) which would formulate best-practice procedures, have a registry of foreign proceedings with Indian connections, and act as a point of liaison for foreign fiduciaries.

Imbibing procedural discipline

Procedural discipline is also important. To prevent asset deterioration and stakeholder frustration, courts must enforce binding timeframes for foreign representative involvement, including defined dates for claim filing, relief applications, and document exchange. Judges, tribunal members, and practitioners require specialised training in comparative insolvency law, international negotiation, and asset recovery.  The IBC, in collaboration with universities and organisations like INSOL, should offer certification courses, workshops, and mentorship.

A way forward

At the present time, India is in a very crucial stage, and the talk is regarding the strengthening of the insolvency system. It is seen that the domestic laws have been quickly developed, but the country is now also struggling to handle the cases which are related to cross-border. If India adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law through the proposed amendment, i.e, “Part Z” will help bring India with more than fifty leading jurisdictions, as well as provide relief in foreign proceedings and legal clarity which needed during recognition. Not only this, but when the country enters into a reciprocal agreement with important centres such as the US, UK and Singapore, such an agreement will ensure smooth coordination in the cross-border cases and mutual recognition of insolvency orders. 

When a cross-border facilitation Office is set up within IBBI, then through this, it will help in bringing all expertise together, which makes the procedure even and uniform and also provides a single point of contact for all foreign representatives. When the timelines are clear for the foreign participants then it helps in ensuring smoother processes and also helps in improving skills which needed in handling large multinational restructurings.

Frequently asked questions (FAQS)

1. Can any international creditor file for bankruptcy under IBC if he does not have any local counsel?

Yes, any international creditor can file for bankruptcy under IBC if he does not have any local counsel. In the judgment of Macquarie Bank v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Supreme Court said that foreign financial creditors will now be able to start a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in India without needing a local resolution expert. 

2. Can a legal practitioner outside India take part in an Indian CIRP directly?

Foreign practitioners cannot automatically appear at the moment; they have to wait for Section 235 letters of request, which can be given by Indian tribunals at their discretion. Foreign trustees have no recourse to reciprocal treaties or Model Law provisions and must apply for express permission of the courts to participate in a CIRP.

3. What are the available remedies where a foreign creditor’s claim is accepted, but enforcement over assets abroad is needed?

Once a domestic judgment or order of liquidation in India is secured, foreign creditors have to depend upon mutual enforcement agreements or local laws within the jurisdiction of the asset. Without bilateral insolvency arrangements, they typically encounter further litigation for the acknowledgement and enforcement of Indian orders abroad, which adds time and expense.

Reference

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack

This article is written by Adv. Kunal Sinha. He holds eight years of experience in litigation and dispute resolution and represents clients before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court, NCLT, NCDRC, and other forums. He is a panel counsel for leading institutes and handles high-stakes commercial, civil and arbitration matters across sectors, including real estate, pharmaceuticals and education. 

Introduction 

In the recent case of Vinod Infra Developers vs. Mahaveer Lunia (2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated an appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. The core issue of the case was whether a civil court can decide a case related to ownership rights, which also includes tenancy law governed by the revenue court.

Along with this issue, the jurisdiction of the civil court was also discussed, especially in cases where there are overlapping chances with the revenue courts’ power under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955.           

Lastly, this judgment also elaborated the grounds for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule XI Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a key procedural point for anyone practising civil law.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Land Disputes

Civil Courts have jurisdiction to discuss matters related to title, inheritance, partition, declaration concerning immovable property, including agricultural land, unless any law says otherwise. 

For example, under Rule 202 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, civil courts are not allowed to deal with matters related to land revenue assessment or collection. 

There are several other factors that lead to jurisdictional challenges. Let’s explore some.   

Jurisdictional Overlap with other forums 

The civil courts’ jurisdiction is more often contested, especially in revenue-related matters. That is because the revenue courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters. For instance, Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, explicitly bars the civil courts from entertaining any suit involving tenancy rights. In case a party approaches the civil court for declaratory relief over the property without following the mandatory requirement of declaration of tenancy rights, then other parties may contest such a suit on lack of jurisdiction. 

In this context, placing reliance on Pyare Lal vs Subhendra Piliania and Others (2019), emphasis is placed on the jurisdictional bar imposed by the statute. The dispute involved the appellant seeking cancellation of the gift deed without obtaining khatedari rights from the appropriate revenue authority. Therefore, the Apex Court observed, the appellant could not seek a declaration without obtaining khatedari rights from the competent revenue authority.

Lack of jurisdiction demarcation 

At times, the legislature fails to demarcate between civil and other jurisdictions, particularly in cases where mixed questions of judicial and administrative relief are involved, resulting in jurisdictional challenges between civil and other forums with similar jurisdiction.               

Formulation of special laws 

Generally, the concern regarding formulation of special laws are based on lack of specific attention to the distinct nature of dispute and subject matters, which requires establishment of a specialized forum, as before enactment of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, disputes concerning flat allotment of flats were addressed by consumer forums, placing flatbuyers alongside ordinary consumers seeking refunds for defective goods. This led to disproportionate and inefficient adjudication of issues.

For instance, special laws often establish specialised forums dedicated to adjudicate issues exclusively falling within their domain, thereby ensuring subject matter expertise and procedural efficiency, such as the Debt Recovery Tribunal under The Recovery Of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 illustrates a specialised forum, thereby matters exclusively triable by the Debt Recovery Tribunal fall outside the purview of civil courts.

What happened in Vinod Infra Developers vs. Mahaveer Lunia, 2025

Background 

In this case, the Vinod Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership rights over agricultural land. The land in controversy had been transferred through a sale deed executed by Mahaveer Lunia (Respondent no. 1) in his own favour and in favour of other respondents. The execution of the sale deed was based on an unregistered Power of Attorney and an agreement to sell, forming the most contentious aspect of the dispute. 

Meanwhile, respondents moved an application under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the Plaint on the various grounds, including Non-disclosure of cause of action, no mortgage existed, incorrect valuation and insufficient court fees. The Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, dismissed the application in limine (at the outset). However, the High Court, in a revision petition, reversed the order passed by the Additional District Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. (appellant) brought a civil appeal before the Apex Court.  

Findings of the Apex Court 

The Apex Court in the civil appeal examined the interplay between the jurisdiction of Civil courts to confer title and the jurisdiction of revenue authorities to determine khatedari Rights under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The respondent’s grievance was primarily directed at the procedural irregularity committed by the appellant in initiating civil proceedings. The contention was confined to the procedural lapse in instituting suit without first obtaining khatedari rights.  

Consequently, the Apex Court negated the pleadings concerning such procedural lapse and allowed the civil appeal. Additionally, the Apex Court by referring to Section 17 & 49 of Registration Act, 1908, which require mandatory registration of non-testamentary instruments executed to assign rights, outrightly held that the unregistered power of attorney and the agreement to sell were inadmissible before the court of law, as the said documents were mandatorily required to be registered for the purpose of effectuating the valid transfer of the property. 

Additionally, the Apex Court also relied upon Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which stipulates that a mere contract of sale, even if accompanied by possession, does not, by itself, create any interest over such property. The court also referred to Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates that documents requiring compulsory registration must be registered within 4 months from the date of execution. Lastly, the Apex Court, while examining Order VII Rule XI of the CPC, 1908, observed that if even a single triable issue is disclosed in the plaint, it cannot be rejected summarily. 

Key Findings 

Applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 

The Supreme Court made it very clear that only in limited circumstances a plaint under Order VII Rule XI can be rejected. Basically, if the plaint fails to disclose the cause of action or is barred by any law or is undervalued or is not stamped properly, it can be rejected. It was also observed that when there is any triable issue that seems on the face of the records, the plaint should not be rejected, and the matter must be allowed to move forward for trial.

Uphold the jurisdiction of the civil court 

The Court reaffirmed that civil courts have the power to discuss cases related to the transfer of title or the grant of declaratory relief over Immovable property. However, the Court overlooked the procedural requirement that before asking for any derogatory relief, one is required to obtain tenancy rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955.   

Affording a fair opportunity to cure the defect 

While looking into the matter of insufficient court fees, the Court relied on its earlier decision in Tajendra Singh Ghambir & Another Vs Gurpreet Singh & Others (2014). It was cleared that the suit cannot be dismissed solely because of insufficient court fees. The law gives a chance to the plaintiff to rectify such procedural mistakes. 

Application of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Apex Court relied upon the pleadings of the appellant concerning the transaction under agreement to sell was a mortgage arrangement, falling within the exception to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (Section 95 Bhartiya shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), thereby it can be testified through oral and extrinsic evidence to elucidate the true nature of the transaction. The proviso (1) to section 92, permits the oral testimony to invalidate any document which was executed to get a decree in his favor on failure of consideration, as in instant case the appellant argued that consideration for ‘sale’ was never truly existed the said documents were not intended to transfer the title, rather the same were in substance of mortgage.  

Inadmissibility of unregistered instruments 

The Apex Court reiterated the well-settled law regarding the mandatory registration of documents under the Registration Act, 1908, to effectuate a sale transaction, holding that an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell is inadmissible in evidence to effectuate such a transaction. 

In this context, reliance is rightly placed on Muruganandam vs Muniyandi (Died) Through LRs (2025), where the Apex Court outrightly held that unregistered documents may be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance. The court also referred to its earlier findings in S Kaladevi vs V.R. Somasundaram (2010), which affirms this well-settled principle.    

Mutation is merely an administrative consequence

The Apex Court rightly held that mutation entries are merely for fiscal purposes and do not confer any title. Particularly in this case, it was an administrative consequence of the execution of the sale deed. 

In this context, the court placed reliance on  Suraj Bhan vs Financial Commissioner, (2007) & Jitendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021), where the Apex Court reiterated the settled principle that Civil courts are well-equipped to confer title of immovable Property, mere mutation of names is not sufficient to establish title. 

Invalidation of the sale deed 

The Apex Court invalidated the execution of the sale deed, as the execution was carried out after the revocation of such power of attorney; such a transaction is deemed non-est in law.

While adjudicating the issue concerning mandatory registration of documents under the Registration Act, 1908, the Apex Court specifically observed that an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell can only be relied upon for a collateral purpose for specific performance.               

What makes this case Stand Out

This judgment is distinguishable from earlier findings, as particularly in this case, the Apex Court failed to classify the procedural lapse concerning the failure of declaration of khatedari rights by the appellant before obtaining declaratory reliefs from the civil court, as the appellant’s own pleadings reflect their status as khatedari tenants. 

Despite this, the Court failed to appreciate the jurisdiction of revenue courts for the declaration of khatedari rights under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. This procedural lapse concerning the failure of declaration of khatedari rights by the appellant is in the violation of procedural integrity of revenue courts, as it is well-established that the party cannot seek declaratory relief from a civil court until the administrative requirements are not accompanied therewith. 

In this context, the Apex Court findings in Pyarelal vs Shubhendra Pilania (2019), under a similar set of facts, the court outrightly held that a plaintiff seeking cancellation of a gift deed must first establish his status as Khatedar, and such declaration is a prerequisite for seeking such relief. This principle was also reaffirmed in Rajasthan State Shriganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajeet Singh (2023), where a similar view was taken by the  High Court of Rajasthan, while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Likewise, in Sunil v. Ostwal Phoschem (India) Ltd. (2023), the court demonstrated that civil courts are not entitled to entertain a suit until the valid declaration of Khatedari Rights by the Revenue Court. 

Notwithstanding the fact, the Supreme Court appears to have misapprehended the core arguments, as respondents never disputed the jurisdiction of civil courts to confer title per se, or argued that the revenue court had such jurisdiction. Rather, their arguments were deeply rooted in the mandatory declaration of khatedari rights, before instituting the civil suit. 

The earlier pronouncements of this court were rendered on distinct factual matrices, wherein revenue court proceedings were either pending or actively contested. However, in the instant matter, no such proceeding was pending. Accordingly, the earlier findings are not directly applicable to the present case.  

Critical analysis and some unaddressed contentions

The judgment raises a mix of factual and legal questions. But there are still some common issues that haven’t been answered, such as:

Not recorded the findings of the High Court 

It seems that the Court missed the observation of the High Court regarding the party’s status as a tenant. This is essential when applying Section 207. 

The main issue was related to the procedural lapse. The suit was filed without first obtaining the khatedari rights. But since the findings were made in isolation, it should have been looked at alongside the observations of the High Court.  

Didn’t examine the veracity of the unilateral revocation 

The Court did not question the validity of the appellant’s move to revoke the power of attorney. This revocation was done without providing any notice to the respondent and also without providing them a chance to be heard. Since the document was formulated to make the decision in favour of the respondent, this was an utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Such documents could not have been revoked without them agreeing.

No clarification on the jurisdiction sequence  

The Court did recognise the jurisdiction of the civil court in declaratory relief matters. It also acknowledge the jurisdiction the revenue court for khatedari matters. But there was no discussion on how these two issues are connected. 

It is a set rule that a party is not allowed to pray for declaratory relief from a civil court until the administrative steps are finished. The question was whether the jurisdiction of the civil court would be impacted if the matter involves mandatory declaration of khatedari rights and ownership rights. 

Overlooked documentary evidence on the behest of oral testimony

There were some arguements presented by the respondents. These were related to the execution of the documents within the relevant time frame. This also included the sale agreement and was a strong evidence of the sale transaction. It showed that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale. But these arguments were completey missed. 

It instead chose to rely on the oral testimony to interepret the actual transaction and this wrongly brought Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 into play. 

Balance between Statutory Bar and Legal Right

Moreover, the Apex Court failed to balance the express statutory bar under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 with the enforcement of legal rights, as the Apex Court failed to appreciate the jurisdiction of revenue court in matters concerning khatedari rights vis-a-vis enlarged the scope of civil court jurisdiction, enabling litigants to approach civil courts without obtaining khatedari rights, or without following any procedural requirement (i.e. mutation of names in revenue records). 

Does this decision expand or limit the avenues available to parties in land disputes?  

This decision expands the avenues available to the litigants by broadening the scope of civil court jurisdiction, particularly in matters concerning ownership rights. The court also imposed the restriction on premature rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly where a triable issue is disclosed in the plaint. Additionally, the court reiterated the plaintiff’s right to cure procedural defects –insufficient court fees and stamping, thereby securing civil remedies.               

Impact on small landholders or developers

Furthermore, this precedent may strengthen the legal protection of small landholders, as from now onwards, the registration of documents is compulsory. This judicial recognition of mandatory registration of documents may enhance the standards of legal compliance, which may protect the small landholders from losing property through informal documentation. On the other hand, this judgement may have grave implications for small or large-scale developers, as this judgement effectively mandates the developers to conduct due diligence before executing any relevant documents and also emphasises that mere notarization is not sufficient to effectuate the claim.       

Practical implications for legal practitioners

This precedent carries significant implications for both litigants and real-estate consultants, as this judgment reinforces concerns regarding registration compliance to effectuate the transfer of title, and also reaffirms the jurisdiction of the civil court in transferring the title of the immovable property. The detailed version is as follows – 

No legal sanctity of unregistered documents 

Unregistered documents hold no legal sanctity in transferring title, thereby putting stakeholders, particularly land developers, on alert to ensure strict compliance to statutory provisions. 

Procedural fairness Vs. Legal Rights 

The findings of the Apex Court affirm that the cancellation of a sale deed without obtaining khatedari rights ensures the litigants’ access to civil remedies without following the rigorous process of revenue courts, thereby safeguarding the interest of the small land-holders.  

Limitation on the scope of Order VII Rule XI

The court narrows down the scope of Order VII Rule XI, provides procedural ventilation to litigants, by reaffirming that even if a single triable issue is disclosed in the plaint, then such a lawsuit is sustainable, thereby enlarging the operational scope of civil court jurisdiction. 

Mutation entries are not sufficient to confer the title 

The court also clarified that merely the mutation of names is not sufficient to confer any title, as it is merely an administrative consequence. Consequently, the burden is now on the claimants to substantiate their title over immovable property through proper legal instruments, instead of relying on revenue entries

Nonetheless, the lack of clarity on the interplay between the grant of declaratory relief and the declaration of khatedari rights leaves litigants in a state of procedural uncertainty. This judicial silence warrants legislative clarification to harmonise the functions of the civil and revenue courts.  

Pre-contractual instrument 

Now, litigants must be more cautious in terms of unilateral execution and revocation of documents, as in this case, the court vehemently relied upon the revoked Power of Attorney while rejecting the sale deed.    

Expert Review: Striking a balance between judicial innovation and legislative silence

The Vinod Infra Developers judgment gives clarity on how the civil courts and revenue authorities work together in land disputes. It was made clear by the Court that it is the Tenancy Act that can deal with the disputes related to tenancy. But, yes, in the matter of the title and ownership, the civil court can decide the issue.

What do I see as the key takeaway from the decision? It is that this judgment stood strong against the usage of informal and unregistered documents for property transfer. The Court focused on the importance of proper registration and took a step to prevent misuse of ensure certainty in property transactions.

However, there are still some unresolved issues. There is still no proper legislative clarity on how those cases will be dealt with in which both tenancy and ownership issues are involved. Now, because of this gap, out of confusion, the litigants choose the best option that suits their interest, hence, forum shopping and procedural delays.

Well! Critics may argue that this judgment could weaken the revenue courts’ authority or may lead to premature title claims. Even so, by affirming the power of the civil courts, this judgment helps avoid prolonged litigation, especially in those cases where the parties’ status is unclear or disputed.          

Conclusion and Recommendation    

In this case, the Apex Court revisited the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to effect transfer of title, emphasised the statutory requirement of registration of documents, and also clarified the grounds for rejection of the plaint. Nevertheless, the court failed to address the core issue concerning the declaration of khatedari rights before invoking civil jurisdiction. Notably, this omission reveals the jurisdictional ambiguity and warrants a revisit of the application of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955. Moreover, legislative intervention is necessary to expel such ambiguity by limiting the jurisdiction of civil courts to preserve the functional relevance and exclusivity; otherwise, the formulation of revenue courts would become nugatory. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

1. Under what conditions will the application under Order VII Rule XI be allowed? 

An application under O.7 R.11 can be allowed on certain grounds, which are as follows:

• Non-Disclouser of Cause of Action 
• Non-payment of court fees, despite the specific directions from the court. 
• Suit barred by law 
• Plaint not properly stamped
• Plaint no filed in duplicate 
• Non-compliance with Order VII Rule 9.

2. What is the cause of action in reference to Order 7 Rule 11(a) 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs Poniamman Educational Trust, (2012) elucidated that, ‘Cause of Action’ is a bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff the right to sue. It includes a set of facts that are instrumental to obtaining a decree from the court must be set out in very clear terms.   

3. Whether the civil court is entitled to confer the title of the disputed land? 

Section 9, read with Explanation 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers a civil court to try all suits of a civil nature, particularly those involving property rights, unless expressly or impliedly barred by a statute.

4. What is the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955?

This Act intends to consolidate and alter the previous laws relating to agricultural land in the State of Rajasthan, and also provides certain land reforms and matters connected therewith.   

References

Section 9 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd vs Mahaveer Lunia, 2025

Order 7, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 

Section 207 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 

Pyarelal vs Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through …, 2019

Section 17 Registration Act, 1908 

Section 49 Registration Act, 1908 

Section 54 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 

Section 23 Registration Act, 1908 

Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir & Anr vs Sardar Gurpreet Singh & Ors on 12 September, 2014

Muruganandam vs Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs, 2025

S.Kaladevi vs V.R.Somasundaram & Ors on 12 April, 2010

Suraj Bhan & Ors vs Financial Commissioner & Ors on 16 April, 2007

Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 

Rajasthan State Shriganganagar Sugar … vs Ajeet Singh, 2023

Sunil vs Ostwal Phoschem (India) Ltd … on 6 January, 2025

Section 92 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 

Church Of Christ Charitable Trust & Edu vs M/S. Ponniamman Educational Trust Rep., 2012

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack

The blog is written by Adv. Niyati Sharma. She holds over six years of experience in high-stakes litigation, corporate advisory, and regulatory compliance. She is a senior panel counsel for the Union of India in the Delhi High Court and represents government departments and clients in the Supreme Court of India. Her expertise spans POSH compliance, corporate and employment law and complex regulatory issues. With her passion for policy reforms and women’s empowerment in governance, she contributes legal writing, panel discussions and mentoring future legal professionals.  

Let’s begin

Don’t you think that our educational institutes aren’t just meant to be a centre for getting knowledge, but also a protector of it’s talent? Educational institutions are meant to nurture and protect the minds. But these days, protection has turned into exploitation in various places. Why do you think colleges have turned into an uncomfortable and scary place? Educational Institutions have become a place where students face sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can take place by way of touch, comments, and sometimes even by inhumane acts like rape. Mostly, many students stay quiet. They are afraid of what society might say or think. Those who don’t want to stay quiet are made silent.

We can talk about the recent case at one of the reputed Medical Colleges in India. A trainee doctor was killed in the case of RG Kar Medical College. After that terrible case of sexual assault and murder, we saw protests across the nation. Most of us also started thinking that those who save our lives are also not safe. People started thinking whether the colleges are actually safe. The questions were raised regarding the rules and regulations formulated for protection against sexual harassment. 

Well! Most of us said that Laws must work and not just exist. We have a special law for sexual harassment of women at their place of work. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, deals with these kinds of cases. Basically, every workplace has to create an ICC, i.e. Internal Complaints Committee. This ICC at the workplace is meant to help anyone facing sexual harassment. But the thing is that many places treat it as a formality.

Recently, many colleges have started building better and safer places for everyone. But do you think it is enough? Who do you think is responsible for this? What do you think should be done by the victim? And most importantly, what can these institutions do to tackle sexual harassment? 

Myth vs reality

Talking about Myths, there are many surrounding sexual harassment. Don’t you think myths hide realities about sexual harassment in learning institutions? These wrong ideas end up protecting wrongdoers and make it harder for victims to get justice.

Myth 1 

These incidents take place only in isolated areas. 

But actually, the truth is, it can happen anywhere. For instance, sexual harassment can be in the form of irrelevant remarks in group discussions. Assuming that there is a woman engaged in debate, and she is arguing for the motion. Seeing this, the opponents are so pissed that they called her a ‘Slut’ and made remarks like ‘Shut up!’. This is not something that is to be taken normally.

Moreover, it includes gender-centric vulgar jokes during class interactions, unrequited staring in the library, etc.

Myth 2

Most of the harassers are strangers. 

This is a common belief. But the reality is different. Most of the attackers are someone who is known to the victims. Now, when I say known then this includes classmates and even faculty members. 

There have been some incidents, like a PhD scholar reported a sexual harassment case against a professor who attacked her, in Sambalpur University, in 2024.

Another incident is, there was a professor in Delhi University who was ordered to take mandatory retirement by the Delhi High Court in 2023.

Why? 

It is because an M.Phil. student was subjected to sexual intimidation by him. He was sending inappropriate messages to her. The disciplinary action against him was considered correct by the Court. 

Myth 3

Blaming the victim. 

People blame the victim instead of the harasser. For example, it is often the clothes worn and the way they act that result in these activities. 

Myth 4

These assaults happen with only women. 

But it is not only women but also all underprivileged groups. It includes male, transgender, and non-binary students.

The educational institutes need to recognise these facts to break the myths.

Understanding the fear of speaking out

Why do students fear confronting institutions in sexual harassment cases? What stops their voices from being heard? 

There was a review published by the Asian Review of Social Sciences. There were reasons listed, which were communication challenges and breakdowns on the part of institutions. It also combined reasons with social stigma, suppressed reporting, and prolonged campus-based violence. Students fear campus-based isolation, academic/personal revenge, losing reputation, and friendships. 

In  2018, 15 IIT Bombay students accused a senior-cum-mentor of sexual harassment and assault. However, delayed actions on the part of the redressal channels by the institution triggered a sense of suspicion and sent across a clear message, i.e. collective action can also be ignored. 

These incidents highlight the challenges encountered by victims because of a lack of institutional accountability, fear of retribution, and the communal cost. 

Role played by the institutions

It needs to be realised that encouraging silence and facts suppression empowers culprits. It can also pave the way for more serious crimes. So, it can be said that the prompt implementation of rules and policies strengthens the voices. 

There are several steps that institutions can take to strengthen the victim’s voice. 

Clear policies and procedures establishment

Comprehensive anti-harassment policies are required that mention all unacceptable behaviour and consequences. 

Safe and supportive reporting mechanisms

A confidential and simple reporting channel is required to be created. This must have multiple reporting options, like online reporting or offline reporting and be available for everyone. 

Fair and transparent investigation

A proper, impartial committee must be formed, and the staff must be trained to take complaints with empathy. The victim must be updated about every process and progress. While balancing the need for accountability, confidentiality must be maintained.

Strengthening the victim’s voice

Victim-centred support is required. It must consist of mandatory medical care, academic support and proper counselling sessions for victims. An anonymous setup must be prepared for victims that would allow them to present their story without any hesitation. Proper legal guidance must be provided.

A proper system helps students in building their confidence, as much as this increases their belief in the administration to the same level, this deters the wrongdoers. 

Justice for other genders

For the protection of female students, the cornerstone is the POSH Act, which is gender specific and has created a rights-based safety net in the universities. This protection is further strengthened under the UGC Regulation 2015. 

But do we have anything for male students? 

Well! The question should also include the LGBTQI+ students and the students who fall outside this community umbrella. What about them?

Thanks to the constitutional frameworks like Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty), along with the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions 2009, which includes rules related to no harassment and no discrimination.   

But again, what happens when these act takes a criminal turn? 

Like stalking, or sexual assault, or intimidation? 

Here is when the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 plays its role, it criminalises the acts under different Sections. Sections 74, 75, and 76 for assault, Section 351 for criminal intimidation, and Section 78 for stalking.  

Recent judicial and policy developments

As usual, Indian legal machinery is evolving and has resorted to resilient measures while encountering challenges against gender-oriented crimes. Different judgments by the Apex Court outline that a safe educational environment is a constitutional right. 

You know, in early 2025, in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1149/2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reinforced the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) guidelines driven by consent. The Court directed trauma training for campus administrators to promote victim-centric solutions. This ruling of the Supreme Court promotes the interest of the victim and confirms that it shall be ranked over the reputation of the institution.

The 2024-2025 UGC circulars, that was emphasized under the 2025 ruling by the Supreme Court, include several things. Now it is also required to have a training program of ten hours for new students to raise awareness. The colleges are required to show information about POSH law, ICC and UGC regulations, etc, along with helpline numbers such as 181 and 112 across campus and on the website. Besides that, colleges have to share the compliance reports on the portals such as SAKSHAM and the University Activity Monitoring Portal (UAMP) to promote transparency and accountability. We can say that this case promotes the interest of victims and directs that it is important than the reputation of colleges. But the colleges should work honestly to help the students or else these compliances are just another formality.

Thus, the foundation and the execution of these reforms together will lead to the resolution and reduction of gender-based violence. 

Towards a safer future

Our institutions are plagued by sexual harassment incidents. This is further fuelled by ignoring and creating an unhealthy learning environment. We do have existing laws, but why are institutions still not able to implement them properly? What is lacking? 

Nothing but a strict system that supports the victim and not the myths, which often protect the offenders. 

So where should they start?

It should start with implementing a non-negotiable safety measure, bringing a strict zero-tolerance policy, setting up proper internal complaint committees and training committee staff to handle delicate cases. A proper complaint system, which is available for all and unbiased, is also required.    

A combined effort of students and faculty is required for upholding respect and supporting victims. The institution must focus on accountability and victim dignity over reputation.

At the same time, just setups won’t work; proper functioning of these setups is also essential, because true change would only come when awareness turns into concrete action.   

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

1. How can institutions tackle online sexual harassment cases?

Along with a proper functioning complaint channel, proper digital safety training is required. Proper monitoring on online platforms can be done. Students can be trained about online boundaries through peer ambassador programs.    

2. How effective is the witness mediation training?

Witness Mediation training programs are mostly effective when they help participants with intervention skills, build their confidence to safely act and create a culture where everyone feels responsible for addressing and avoiding any harassment acts. 

3. What is the role of parents in strengthening safety on campuses?

The very first step parents should take is to make their relationship with their kids comfortable so that they are able to share what they face. Being aware of the campus policies is also essential, and standing with the victim and holding the institution accountable when required. 

4. How can teachers help prevent sexual harassment?

Many students see the teachers as role models, so the teachers should play that role wisely by becoming a protector. For example,  Ashoka University has a Committee Against Sexual Harassment (CASH) that is its Internal Complaints Committee, and professors actively take sessions with new students to raise awareness against sexual harassment. When teachers are there to guide, there’s a huge difference in the confidence level of students. These kinds of sessions make students feel safe and comfortable in college.

References

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack