top of page
Graphic Shapes



Assisted the Supreme Court in a matter seeking quashment of an externment order passed by the State of Maharashtra against a journalist.  Supreme Court in this Landmark judgment, titled Rahmat Khan v. State of Maharashtra, held that right to free movement under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied on flimsy grounds.

Represented the Plaintiff, who is a notable personality, in a Suit for defamation and injunction filed against an anonymous account on a social media platform, from which content was posted, causing harm to his reputation. The case delved into the issues of anonymity and those intermediaries providing a platform for posting anonymous allegations online.


Represented the Appellants in the landmark judgment titled as E.S. Krishnamurthy v. M/s Bharath Hi-tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. which laid down the scope and limitation on the powers of the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Represented the Petitioners in the judgment titled as Manish Kumar v. Union of India which pertained to the constitutional validity of certain amendments to Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.


Represented the Financial Creditor, an Asset Reconstruction Company, to which the financial asset of the Corporate Debtor Asian Hotels (West) Ltd. (a listed Company) was assigned while the application filed by the original Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the IBC, was pending adjudication before NCLT. We also successfully opposed the objections filed by minority shareholders of the Corporate Debtor.

Assisted the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a matter pertaining to the distinction and interpretation of the terms ‘seat’ and ‘venue’ under the Indian and International Arbitration regime. The judgment is a leading and a recent pronouncement on the said topic.



Represented retail investors in a challenge against the write-off by Yes Bank Limited of Additional Tier 1 Capital Bonds before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. This is a pressing issue involving the interpretation of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ("BR Act”).

Represented Sanskriti School successfully in an issue pertaining to whether delhi judicial services would qualify as a Class A Civil Service for the purposes of granting admission in the said School. The Delhi High Court declared that DJS is not a Class A civil Service.


Represented Reliance Jio Infocom Limted in an information filed against Airtel, Idea and Vodafone before the CCI, wherein the CCI passed a prima facie order accepting the information as filed

bottom of page