Tata Steel's ₹1,781 Crore GST Demand Falls for a Recited 'Suppression'

Welcome to this week’s issue of the Indian Legal Brief (ILB). Here are the judgments, orders, regulatory changes, and developments that matter to your practice — without the noise.

A four-day court week — Thursday was a holiday — but a dense one. Justices Pardiwala and Chandran ran the revenue table: a ₹1,781 crore GST demand against Tata Steel quashed for boilerplate, a stamp-duty rule set by use rather than zoning, an election petition rescued from a rubber-stamp objection, and a summary-eviction door closed on the State. The Chief Justice’s bench demanded throughput data from the ECI on the Bengal voter-roll appeals and locked down the offerings at Banke Bihari. Off the bench, two statutes woke up: the Tribunals Reforms Act commenced, and India finally has a Mediation Council. Here’s what happened.

Supreme Court Highlights

Tax: §74’s Extended Limitation Needs Foundational Facts, Not a Recited ‘Suppression’

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran — August 25, 2026

The show cause notice ran the department’s favourite formula — “fraud, wilful misrepresentation, suppression of facts” — and demanded ₹890.52 crore in GST from Tata Steel for FY 2018-19 through 2020-21, with a matching ₹890.52 crore penalty and interest stacked on top. In Tata Steel Ltd. v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 920, the Supreme Court quashed the notice, and with it the Order-in-Original of 26 December 2025 — roughly ₹1,781 crore of demand gone on a point of drafting discipline.

Section 74 of the CGST Act unlocks the extended five-year limitation only where tax has escaped by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression. That, the Court held, is something the notice itself must establish: the department must plead the foundational facts that make out the fraud or suppression, not incant the statutory words.

“The mere employment of such words will not indicate an application of mind. The words are not to be mechanically recited to enable recovery outside normal limitation.”

A “bland statement” of suppression made merely to avail the extended period, the bench warned, “puts to peril the notice under Section 74.” The department was left with liberty to start afresh — a new notice pleading actual foundational facts, with any order to be passed before 28 February 2027.

Why it matters: Every pending §74 notice in the country can now be tested against the foundational-facts standard, and most were drafted exactly like Tata Steel’s. Taxpayers get a threshold objection that kills the extended limitation before the merits are reached; the department gets a drafting audit it cannot postpone, because normal limitation keeps running while it rewrites.

---

Elections: Show Us What the SIR Tribunals Are Deciding, Court Tells ECI

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana — August 25, 2026

The tagged West Bengal Special Intensive Revision batch returned on Tuesday with the appellate machinery, not the revision itself, in the dock. The Court directed the Election Commission to furnish detailed data on the appeals actually disposed of by the SIR appellate tribunals — while refusing the petitioners’ push to fix a judicial timeline for disposal. The numbers explain the pressure: roughly 34 lakh appeals are claimed pending, the Calcutta High Court has observed that at the current pace they could take twenty-one years to clear, and the Court was told that about 80 per cent of the appeals filed challenge inclusions in the rolls — leaving the excluded voters, whom the exercise most directly hurt, fighting for priority.

The Trinamool Congress pressed the political edge of the numbers: in several seats, it argued, deletions exceeded the victory margin — a 365-vote loss against some 7,800 deletions in one. The Chief Justice was unmoved: “Can we direct fresh elections?” The bench also reiterated the clarification from its Bihar SIR judgment that exclusion from an electoral roll does not entail the loss of other rights.

Why it matters: The SIR fight has moved from the legality of the revision to the throughput of its appellate tribunals — and the ECI’s own disposal data will now be the battleground. Counsel handling deletion appeals in Bengal should paper the delay record; it is being built into the constitutional challenge.

---

Elections: A Rubber-Stamp Objection Can’t Summarily Kill an Election Petition

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran — August 24, 2026

Senior Advocate Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, the Congress candidate who lost Karimganj to BJP MP Kripanath Mallah by 18,360 votes in 2024, filed an election petition alleging booth capturing across 47 polling stations, voter intimidation and bribery. The Gauhati High Court never reached any of it: it rejected the petition under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act on attestation objections — different rubber stamps on different pages, copies said to be improperly attested. In Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah, 2026 INSC 915, the Supreme Court restored the petition.

“All that the provision requires is that the copies should be attested by the petitioner to be true copy of the petition under his own signature.”

Section 81(3) prescribes no particular form of attestation, the Court held, and rubber stamps conveying the same meaning are no defect. On the more substantial objection — a defect in Form-25, the affidavit that must support corrupt-practice allegations — the Court refused the all-or-nothing consequence: the High Court must verify whether the original Form-25 was duly attested; if it was, the whole petition proceeds on merits, and if not, only the corrupt-practice allegations fall while the other grounds survive.

Why it matters: Threshold Section 86 dismissals on hyper-technical attestation grounds are the standard first line of defence for every returned candidate. This judgment narrows that gate — and its severability approach to Form-25 defects means a drafting slip no longer buries an entire election petition.

---

Customs: Port Trusts Pay the Duty on Goods Pilfered in Their Custody

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manmohan — August 25, 2026

A quarter-century-old fight over who bears the customs duty on cargo that vanishes inside a port ended against the Mumbai Port Trust. Customs authorities had issued demand notices between 1996 and 2000 for duty on imported goods pilfered while in the Port Trust’s custody; the Bombay High Court sided with the Port Trust in 2009. In Union of India v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, 2026 INSC 919, the Supreme Court reversed.

The Commissioner validly approved the Port Trust as a custodian under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, Justice Nagarathna wrote, and Section 45(3) — inserted with a non obstante clause, “a legislative device” to meet exactly this circumstance — fastens an independent, absolute statutory liability on the approved custodian for duty on pilfered goods. That liability stands apart from the bailee’s civil-liability regime of the Major Port Trusts Act: the special statute governing ports does not shield them, because the importer is itself not liable for duty on pilfered goods unless the goods are restored.

Why it matters: Every major port — and by extension every approved custodian in the logistics chain — carries customs-duty exposure on pilferage that its own statute’s liability caps cannot limit. Custodial insurance and warehousing indemnities need re-reading; importers, for once, have a clean answer on who pays when cargo disappears.

---

Property: A SARFAESI Auction Purchaser Is Not a Trespasser — Summary Eviction Barred

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran — August 25, 2026

When Circar Paper Mills’ industrial land near Nellore changed hands in a SARFAESI auction conducted by a secured creditor, the district administration answered with the State’s summary-eviction machinery — treating the occupant as an encroacher on government land. In Circar Paper Mills Ltd. v. District Collector, Nellore, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 868, the Supreme Court shut that route down.

A person who enters possession under a public auction conducted by a secured creditor, holding a sale certificate, “cannot be equated with a rank trespasser or a person in clandestine occupation,” the Court held — particularly where the property has been held under registered deeds and revenue mutations for decades. Summary eviction is not a remedy available to a State lessor for resolving disputes over the transfer of leasehold rights or financial liabilities arising from a SARFAESI sale: “if a bona fide dispute is raised regarding the title of the Government, it cannot take a unilateral decision” to evict. Such disputes go to civil or statutory adjudication, and the auction purchaser’s possession stands protected in the meantime.

Why it matters: State instrumentalities have increasingly used public-premises and encroachment statutes to leapfrog title suits against inconvenient occupants. This draws the line at bona fide title disputes — and gives banks’ SARFAESI sales a measure of finality that summary executive action can no longer unwind.

---

Stamp Duty: The Use of the Land, Not Its Master-Plan Zone, Sets the Valuation

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran — August 24, 2026

A Jaipur building housing a carpet-manufacturing unit — with a “Sodhi Carpets” showroom selling the carpets made on site — passed between brothers by gift deed, stamped at residential rates. The Sub-Registrar demanded commercial rates, pointing to the showroom; the Collector found the premises industrial. In Harinder Singh Sodhi v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 869, the Supreme Court restored the statutory authorities’ findings and set aside the High Court’s contrary view.

“The user determines the valuation of the land, as distinguished from the classification.”

Valuation under the Rajasthan Stamp Act follows the actual use of the property, not the zonal classification in the master plan — and retail sale of self-manufactured goods on site does not convert an industrial building into a commercial one. The premises’ registration as a factory carried significant weight. One sting remained: no refund of the excess residential-rate duty already paid, because the stamping was voluntary.

Why it matters: Stamp authorities across States routinely reassess instruments off the master-plan zone rather than the ground reality. For conveyancers handling mixed-use industrial premises, this is the clean rule to cite — and a reminder to stamp at the defensible rate the first time, because a voluntary excess is gone for good.

---

Family: Maintenance Waived in a Divorce Settlement Stays Waived — Except for the Daughter

Bench: Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan — August 24, 2026

A 2016 settlement agreement saw the wife relinquish all monetary and maintenance claims, confirmed on sworn affidavit before the Family Court; a consent divorce under Section 10-A of the Divorce Act followed in 2017. Years later, monetary claims returned dressed as proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. In Reji Baby v. Subi Mary, 2026 INSC 918, the Supreme Court quashed them: once claims are voluntarily relinquished in a settlement, “revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted” — a settlement binds, and a later breach sounds in consequential remedies, not in pretending the settlement away. No fresh post-divorce cause of action had been pleaded.

The judgment’s second half matters as much. The daughter — who had attained majority before the settlement and was not a party to it — waived nothing. She remains free to pursue her own monetary claims against the father in accordance with law.

Why it matters: For matrimonial settlements, the holding cuts both ways: a comprehensive spousal waiver now reliably defeats DV Act revival, but a settlement that ignores the children settles nothing about them. Draft for the whole family or expect a second round.

---

Criminal Practice: ‘No Coercive Steps’ Protects Liberty, Not the Investigation

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan — August 25, 2026

What does an interim “no coercive steps” order actually freeze? In Arun Kumar Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 860, the Supreme Court held: the accused’s liberty, and nothing more. An interim protection granted while an anticipatory bail plea is pending “would only imply that the liberty of the person seeking anticipatory bail is protected” — it does not bar the investigating officer from completing the investigation and filing a charge sheet.

The ruling sits in open tension with a coordinate bench’s view in Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand (2024), which had treated a charge sheet filed under a no-coercive-action order as impermissible. This bench went the other way, and said so.

Why it matters: Accused persons can no longer treat an interim protection order as freezing the case file, and police need not sit on completed investigations. But with two coordinate benches now squarely divided, the point is a reference candidate — cite both lines, and know which one your High Court follows.

---

Environment: Jojari River Gets a 100-Metre Construction Freeze and a 500-Metre Industry Buffer

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta — August 24, 2026

In the suo motu case it opened in September 2025 after a documentary on industrial pollution in the Jojari — the river that carries Jodhpur’s textile and steel effluent past nearly two million residents — the Supreme Court on Monday imposed interim geography. No construction or development activity within 100 metres of the river’s edge until the High Flood Line and ecological buffer zones are scientifically determined and demarcated; no hazardous or polluting industry within 500 metres on either side of the existing flood line.

Why it matters: The Court is drawing protective buffers before the science lands, not after — a standstill template for every polluted urban river matter. Developers and industrial units along the Jojari face an immediate freeze, and the demarcation exercise will decide how much of it becomes permanent.

---

Temples: ‘Every Penny’ of Banke Bihari’s Offerings Must Reach the Treasury

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana — August 25, 2026

The court-supervised administration of Vrindavan’s Banke Bihari temple produced its sharpest direction yet, after the High-Powered Management Committee reported that sewayats’ bhandaris were collecting offerings directly from devotees.

“Let there be no doubt, and we accordingly direct that every penny of donation must come through the donation boxes or online into the temple treasury. Any impediment created by sevayats or anyone else shall be viewed very seriously.”

Justice Bagchi was careful to preserve the sewayats’ entitlement — the donation goes first to the deity, and the sewayats take their share thereafter. The managing committee must build a transparent receipts mechanism, and the bench indicated it may direct Uttar Pradesh to acquire land for the temple if the ongoing purchase effort hits a roadblock.

Why it matters: This is the working model of judicially-supervised temple administration — offerings routed to the treasury, priest entitlements preserved but sequenced, and the State kept on call for acquisition. Every shrine-management dispute now has a live template to argue from.

Other Notable SC Orders This Week

• Tejpal must surrender first (August 25) — A bench presided by Justice Alok Aradhe rejected Tarun Tejpal’s plea for exemption from surrender, directing him to surrender within two weeks and furnish the certificate; his appeal against the Bombay High Court’s conviction and ten-year sentence goes on board 22 September only once he does.
• Student-protest FIRs: committee challenge parked (August 25) — An application to reconstitute the Justice R. Subhash Reddy committee — opposed by the Solicitor General as “very mischievous” — was tagged to the main matter by the Chief Justice’s bench; the promised quashing order is still awaited, and the CJI said the committee has been told to probe sexual-assault complaints on priority.
• Notice to the 20 rebel TMC MPs (August 25) — On Abhishek Banerjee’s plea for an expeditious Speaker decision on the disqualification petitions, the Chief Justice’s bench issued notice; the Solicitor General disclosed the Speaker had already issued his own notices, giving the MPs seven days to reply.
• Journalist shielded after Ram temple donation reports (August 25) — The Chief Justice’s bench stayed coercive action against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in a Ghaziabad road-rage FIR invoking the SC/ST Act — protection extending to any fresh FIR — with the Police Commissioner’s compliance report due 7 September.
• Kerala minerals royalty stayed both ways (August 24) — The Chief Justice’s bench stayed the Kerala High Court direction to refund roughly ₹1,200 crore collected under the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021 — struck down as unconstitutional below — while restraining the State from levying any further royalty pending its appeal.
• Footpaths are ‘integral to human life’ (August 24) — Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe impleaded every State and UT in the suo motu pedestrian-infrastructure case, seeking responses on demarcated, encroachment-free footpaths in furtherance of the June ruling that the right to walk is a fundamental right.
• Article 220 and the co-opted women members (August 24) — The Court agreed to consider whether co-opting former High Court judges as women members of State Bar Councils violates Article 220’s bar on former judges practising in courts they served — a new wrinkle in the co-option scheme we have tracked since early August.

Insolvency & Corporate

A ₹22,006 Crore Liability Settles at ₹6.5 Crore — and the Banks Are Heading to the NCLAT

NCLT New Delhi (third-member opinion, Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma) — August 25, 2026

The largest personal-guarantor insolvency in the IBC’s history ended, for now, in the smallest of numbers. Dr Subhash Chandra’s repayment plan — ₹6.25 crore to creditors plus ₹25 lakh in costs, against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore on his Essel-group guarantees — was approved under Section 114 after a split bench sent the matter to a third member. Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj had voted to approve; Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri found the plan marred by “serious legal and procedural defects”; Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma’s opinion of 25 August tipped the majority for approval.

The arithmetic that will fuel the appeal: the plan carried 80.814 per cent creditor support, but five Chandra-connected entities held 61.78 per cent of the voting power — the dissenting banks’ central objection. HDFC Bank, which saw only 3.2 per cent of its ₹680 crore claim admitted, is weighing an NCLAT appeal; Canara Bank, Union Bank of India (UK) and LIC Housing Finance have said they will challenge.

Why it matters: A 99.97 per cent haircut approved on connected-party votes is either the personal-guarantor regime working as drafted or its breaking point — and the NCLAT will now have to say which. The appeal will test who may vote in a Sections 105–114 repayment plan, the question every guarantor restructuring has been waiting for.

Other Notable Insolvency Orders

• SFIO can sue for disgorgement (August 25) — The NCLAT (Officiating Chairperson Justice Yogesh Khanna, with Technical Members Ajai Das Mehrotra and Barun Mitra) upheld the SFIO’s authority to file Section 212(14A) Companies Act disgorgement proceedings as the Union’s representative, dismissing BSR & Associates’ maintainability challenge — the recurring threshold objection to every SFIO disgorgement action is dead at appellate level.

At the Bar

Defamation: ‘Crook’ Remarks About an Adversary Lawyer Don’t Survive the Prima Facie Test

Delhi High Court (Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma) — August 25, 2026

A seven-year-old criminal defamation prosecution of Senior Advocate and former MP Pinaki Misra ended with the complaint and the 2019 summoning order quashed. The complainant — a lawyer who had earlier complained against Misra to the Bar Council of Delhi — sued over remarks calling him a “crook” and a “blackmailer”. The Court found no prima facie material showing actual harm to the complainant’s reputation, the ingredient on which a defamation summoning must rest (Pinaki Misra v. State, 2026:DHC:7169).

Why it matters: Summoning orders in defamation complaints between members of the Bar are too often issued on the pleadings alone. The insistence on prima facie material of reputational harm — before a senior counsel is put through trial — is a useful screen to cite at the summoning stage, whoever the parties.

Other Notable at the Bar

• The 30 per cent quota reaches the district Bar (August 25) — The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench (Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla) modified its order on the Sultanpur Bar Association elections, applying the Supreme Court’s Deeksha N. Amruthesh directions down to the district level: 30 per cent of executive posts reserved for women, key posts rotating — the presidency itself reserved for a woman from 2028 and every third year after.
• Delhi High Court restricts intern entry (August 24) — Entry passes are now limited to final-year three-year-LLB and fourth/fifth-year integrated-course students, with a recommendation letter and the supervising advocate’s enrolment number required.
• Himachal Pradesh gets three judges (August 27) — The Centre notified the appointment of Chirag Bhanu Singh as a Judge and Bhupesh Sharma and Yogesh Jaswal as Additional Judges of the High Court, clearing recommendations pending since June. The Supreme Court’s own four new seats remain unfilled — no collegium resolution this week either.

From the High Courts

IP: Does a Website’s Mere Accessibility in Delhi Confer Jurisdiction? Larger Bench to Decide

Delhi High Court (Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani) — August 25, 2026

The pleading that anchors half of Delhi’s trademark docket — the defendant’s listings are “accessible and interactive” in Delhi, so the suit lies here — is going to a larger bench. In Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Kwick Living (I) Pvt. Ltd., 2026:DHC:7198, Justice Bhambhani referred the question whether the mere online accessibility of advertisements and listings, without more, confers territorial jurisdiction in trademark suits, observing that the “principles of territorial jurisdiction cannot be diluted due to the internet.”

Why it matters: Delhi is the default forum for Indian IP enforcement largely because the interactive-website pleading has gone unexamined for years. If the larger bench demands a real commercial nexus, filing strategy changes for every brand-protection practice — and pending suits built on accessibility alone acquire a jurisdictional soft spot.

---

Elections: No Bye-Polls in Tamil Nadu’s Five Vacant Seats While the Petitions Run

Madras High Court (Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan) — August 24, 2026

The bye-elections plea we have tracked since July produced its clearest statement yet: the Election Commission told the Court it does not propose to hold bye-elections in the five vacant assembly seats — Trichy East, vacated by Chief Minister Vijay, among them — until the election petitions arising from the assembly polls are decided. The bench extended its restraint on the ECI and posted the plea for final hearing on 8 September. By Friday the petitions had drawn counters from the Chief Minister and Minister Aadhav Arjuna seeking rejection, the Chief Minister arguing that stalling the bye-polls leaves lakhs of constituents without elected MLAs.

Why it matters: The interplay between pending election petitions and the ECI’s duty to fill casual vacancies within six months is squarely in issue — whatever the Court holds on 8 September will govern every seat vacated into litigation, in Tamil Nadu and beyond.

Other Notable High Court Orders

• Karnataka’s policing week (August 24–29) — Justice Suraj Govindaraj ordered a State-wide audit of police-station CCTV — calling non-functional cameras a “mockery” of the Supreme Court’s Paramvir Singh Saini directions — with a centralised dashboard and fault alerts, returnable 9 September; Justice M. Nagaprasanna stayed an FIR and summoned the DCP over the “illegal” arrest of an activist for a Facebook post on the cancellation of a Kunal Kamra show, imposed ₹3 lakh personal costs on Whitefield police for another illegal arrest, and reserved orders (for 3 September) on the Arnab Goswami–Amit Malviya quash petitions.
• Slum clusters near the PM’s residence to move (Delhi HC, August 25) — Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay’s bench gave some 717 families of three camps six weeks to relocate to DUSIB flats at Savda Ghevra, with a rehabilitation-oversight committee under former judge Manmohan Sharma.
• Grounds of arrest, even for transit remand (Kerala HC, reported August 28) — Justice Kauser Edappagath held that grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee and a relative or friend before the very first production — including before a non-jurisdictional magistrate for transit remand — failing which the arrest is vitiated (2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 465).
• One year to learn Marathi (Bombay HC, August 29) — The State told the Court that all rickshaw and cab drivers get a year to acquire working Marathi, and the challenge to the enforcement drive was closed on that statement.
• Cockfights are illegal, full stop (Madras HC, August 25) — Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel held cockfights violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and declared earlier orders permitting them with conditions “totally unwarranted” and of no precedential value.
• “He is not the King of England” (Madras HC, August 28) — Justice V. Lakshminarayanan refused Tamil Nadu Finance Minister N. Marie Wilson’s bid to skip personal appearance in a 2022 Puducherry criminal case; the minister withdrew his quash plea and agreed to appear.

Legislative & Regulatory Watch

The Tribunals Reforms Act Is in Force — Now Comes the National Tribunals Commission

Ministry of Law & Justice notification — August 25, 2026

The commencement notification we have watched for since the Act passed finally issued on Monday: every provision of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026 is in force, replacing the 2021 Act. Its centrepiece, the National Tribunals Commission — a chairperson who is a former Supreme Court judge or High Court Chief Justice, two judicial and two technical members — takes over selections, performance review and complaints for the tribunals in the First Schedule, including the NCLT, NCLAT, SAT, NGT and ITAT. Members get five-year terms, with age caps of seventy for the chairperson and sixty-seven for members.

What has not happened yet matters just as much: no Commission has been constituted, and no rules have been notified. Until then the Act is architecture without occupants — and the Supreme Court’s own suo motu case on NCLT delays and vacancies returns on 21 September, squarely against this backdrop.

Why it matters: Every NCLT, NCLAT and SAT appointment — and every complaint against a member — now routes through the NTC framework, and tribunal-side practices should expect a transition wobble while it is staffed. A Madras Bar Association-style constitutional challenge to the new structure is close to inevitable; no version of this architecture has yet survived one intact.

---

India Gets Its Mediation Council

Department of Legal Affairs notification — August 27, 2026

Three years after the Mediation Act, 2023 created it on paper, the Central Government has formally established the Mediation Council of India, headquartered in Delhi, by notification under Section 31(1). The Council is the Act’s regulatory engine: recognition of mediation institutes and service providers, accreditation and registration of mediators, and the standards that will decide whether institutional mediation in India becomes a profession or stays a courthouse annexe.

The notification is establishment, not lift-off — members, office-bearers and an operational start date remain to be notified.

Why it matters: The 2023 Act’s pre-litigation mediation architecture has been idling for want of this body. Once it is constituted, mediator registration and provider recognition become live compliance questions for every ADR centre, law-firm panel and in-house mediation clause — worth positioning for before the rules land.

Other Notable Regulatory Moves

• SEBI hardens market cyber-compliance (August 24) — Two circulars: cyber-incident reporting under the CSCRF moves to the standardised FIRE format, and Market Infrastructure Institutions get a measurable IT Resilience Index — exchanges, depositories and clearing corporations now carry scored resilience obligations.
• RBI cuts short the NRI deposit-rate window (August 25) — Amendment directions end the temporary FCNR(B) and NRE interest-ceiling relaxation on 31 August instead of 30 September — a hard one-month cliff for banks marketing elevated NRI deposit rates.
• SEBI extends the ETF microstructure timeline (August 28) — Implementation of the June circular on base price, price bands, pre-open call auction and close-out procedure for ETFs stands extended — the workstream that grew out of the closing-price reforms whose first enforcement case we reported last week.
• Debock Industries promoter barred seven years (reported August 28) — SEBI’s final order in the accounting-fraud case bars promoter-MD Mukesh Manveer Singh for seven years and directors for three to five, with joint disgorgement of ₹59.30 crore plus interest and ₹49 crore of diverted rights-issue money to be brought back.
• CCI clears Cyient–TAO (August 25) — The Commission approved Cyient’s 100 per cent acquisition of California-based TAO Digital Solutions.

What We’re Watching Next Week

• Two Monday deadlines (August 31) — the ICFRE committee’s report defining the Aravalli range falls due (matter listed 7 September), and the Cauvery shortfall plea is listed before the Supreme Court.
• RBI’s mule-account SOP (~September 1) — the four-week window from the digital-arrest directions closes; ED v. Mamata Banerjee resumes 2 September.
• September 3 in the High Courts — Justice Nagaprasanna pronounces on the Arnab Goswami–Amit Malviya quash petitions, and the Preity Zinta and Kapoor-sisters personality-rights matters return in Bombay and Delhi.
• Madras HC bye-elections final hearing (September 8) — with the ECI now on record that no bye-polls will be held while the election petitions run; Tejpal’s surrender window closes the same day.
• Reserved judgments — the two-child-norm challenge, the Sabarimala nine-judge reference and the Jindal Poly Films recall order all remain unpronounced.
• Subhash Chandra appeals — HDFC Bank, Canara Bank, Union Bank (UK) and LIC Housing Finance have signalled NCLAT challenges to the ₹6.5 crore repayment plan.

---

That’s all for this week. If a colleague would find this useful, forward them this page — or better yet, ask them to subscribe.