The Firm has, over the years, developed its regulatory law practice to assist its clients to navigate the ever-changing legislative landscape of the country and to stay compliant within the regulatory framework which is complex and dynamic. Our lawyers are well equipped to advise clients in effectively dealing with regulatory issues they may face in their day-to-day functioning.

We are particularly well placed to assist clients on strategy from a litigation perspective and represent them before the concerned regulatory Authority, Tribunal or Court. Our lawyers have been instrumental in defending clients in multifaceted disputes and have secured favourable orders protecting their business interests.

Key highlights

• The Firm advises and represents Star Group entities, the largest broadcasting network in the country, in the proceedings before the Supreme Court of India, pertaining to the Constitutional validity of Section 11 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and the Regulations/Tariff Orders issued thereunder by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to regulate the pricing regime for the TV channels and the broadcasting industry.

• The Firm has appeared for the Adani Group, a leading business house, before the Supreme Court in a dispute concerning the interpretation of the ‘Composite Scheme’ and the jurisdiction of the Central Commission under Section 79(1)(b) of the Electricity Act 2003, which led to the landmark decision of the Apex Court in Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2017) 14 SCC 80.

• The Firm represents Eastern India Powertech Limited (EIPL), the power sector vertical of the DLF Group before the Supreme Court challenging an erroneous decision of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi (APTEL) on the issue of the levy of the ‘cross subsidy surcharge’. The matter raises an important question of electricity law which can have widespread ramifications.

• The Firm represents Tata Motors Ltd. in a batch matter before the Supreme Court where the essential question which arises is whether the Competition Commission of India could have passed a final order in the absence of any judicial member and in violation of the fundamental judicial principle that ‘those who hear, must decide’.

• The Firm has been advising and appearing for PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and its network of audit firms before the Supreme Court of India in the proceedings pertaining to the alleged violations of the Code of Professional Conduct under the Chartered Accountants Act 1949 by their domestic and multi-national chartered accountancy firms.