The Karnataka High Court, vide its judgment dated 31 October 2025 in Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 17821 of 2025 and connected matters), held that an order passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA Authority) or the RERA Appellate Tribunal cannot be executed by a Civil Court as a “decree” under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court ruled that the machinery of civil execution under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to RERA Authority orders.

On 21 November 2025, India’s Government made four consolidated labour codes effective, namely (a) Code on Wages, 2019; (b) Industrial Relations Code, 2019; (c) the Code on Social Security, 2019; (d) Occupational Safety, Health and Working CondiDons Code, 2019 (collectively referred to as “Labour Codes”), replacing 29 older central labour laws. The reform is pitched as one of the most significant labour-law overhauls since independence, streamlining regulation, widening coverage, and balancing worker protections with ease of doing business. Though the Labour Codes are notified, some detailed rules (especially at the state level) are still to be notified.

The United Arab Emirates has rapidly emerged as a leading hub for international arbitration, thanks to its strategic geographic position and investor-friendly legal reforms. For businesses and individuals from the United States, Europe, and Canada, understanding the regime governing the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in the UAE is more crucial than ever. The framework—anchored by the UAE Arbitration Law and the New York Convention—offers both promising opportunities and procedural nuances. This article provides an expert overview tailored to international stakeholders, grounded in the most current legal developments as of November 2025.

Contributors: Mr. Bhushan Shah (Partner) · Ms. Shreya Dalal (Associate Partner) Introduction The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MEITY”) has now formally notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“DPDP Rules” or “Rules”) on 13...

Introduction: Globalization and the Rise of Cross-Border Dispute Resolution In the interconnected landscape of global commerce, the demand for robust mechanisms to enforce foreign judgments has never been more critical. This is particularly relevant for individuals...

Contributors: Ms. Shreya Dalal (Associate Partner) · Mr. Mohammed Lokhandwala (Associate) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the ma4er of Samarendra Das v. Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6347, reaffirmed that a medical or sales representative employed in the...

In a landmark judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Rhutikumari v. Zanmai Labs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Court recognized cryptocurrencies as ‘property’ under Indian law, capable of being held in trust and protected via interim measures. This decision, arising from a Section 9 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), addresses the fallout from a 2024 cyberattack on the WazirX crypto exchange. It clarifies the fiduciary nature of user-exchange relationships and limits the extraterritorial application of foreign restructuring schemes, drawing on principles from global precedents on digital assets. The ruling resolves ambiguities in crypto’s legal status amid India’s evolving regulatory landscape.

Under the GDPR, is there a possibility for a data subject to request that the controller be prohibited from further unlawful processing in the future? How does the controller’s liability for damages arise in such a case? These are the questions addressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Quirin Privatbank case, which we analyse below.
Smartlegal Schmidt&Partners reports from Hungary:

In its recent judgement, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) examined three crucial aspects under legal framework of EU data protection: (i) whether an individual’s opinions can constitute personal data, (ii) whether pseudonymised data transmitted to a third party may still qualify as personal data, and (iii) the scope of a controller’s obligation to inform data subjects about recipients at the time of data collection. In this article, we have summarized the most important points of the judgement.