<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Writing by V.P. Singh | VPS Law Associates</title>
<link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/"/><link rel="self" href="https://vpslaw.in/feed.xml"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/</id>
<updated>2026-10-29T00:00:00+05:30</updated><author><name>Vijai Pratap Singh</name></author>
<entry><title>The Charity Commissioner as Kingmaker: Caveats, Freezes and the Battle for Tata Sons</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/charity-commissioner-kingmaker-tata-sons/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/charity-commissioner-kingmaker-tata-sons/</id>
<updated>2026-10-29T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>A column on the place of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 in the contest for control of Tata Sons. The author notes that a law long associated with local religious, educational and medical trusts has, in 2026, moved to the centre of the struggle over who controls the Tata group.</summary></entry><entry><title>Finality Against the Stay: Settlement Finality, Clearing-Corporation Priority and the Insolvency Moratorium After the Securities Markets Code</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/settlement-finality-clearing-corporation-insolvency-moratorium/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/settlement-finality-clearing-corporation-insolvency-moratorium/</id>
<updated>2026-10-26T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>An analysis of what happens when a clearing or trading member enters a corporate insolvency resolution process: whether the clearing corporation can still declare default, close out positions, net obligations and appropriate margins and collateral despite the Section 14 moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and whether completed settlements stay final. The question has been sharpened by the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026, the Securities Markets Code Bill, 2025, which moves settlement finality and netting into primary statute, and the Standing Committee’s July 2026 recommendation that the clearing corporation’s priority operate “notwithstanding” the IBC rather than “subject to” it.</summary></entry><entry><title>Restraint, Rights and Remedy: Restrictive and IP Covenants in Service Contracts at the Crossroads of the Contract Act, the Competition Act and the Specific Relief Act</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/restrictive-ip-covenants-service-contracts/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/restrictive-ip-covenants-service-contracts/</id>
<updated>2026-10-25T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>An analysis of which post-employment restrictions in Indian service contracts, such as non-compete, non-solicitation, confidentiality and IP clauses, the law will actually enforce. The author argues that a covenant can fail in three distinct ways: it may be void as a restraint of trade under Section 27 of the Contract Act, valid between the parties but anti-competitive under the Competition Act, or lawful yet unenforceable because the court cannot grant the injunction sought under the Specific Relief Act.</summary></entry><entry><title>Incentive or Windfall? Reconsidering the Resolution Professional’s “Success Fee” under Regulation 34-B</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/resolution-professional-success-fee-regulation-34-b/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/resolution-professional-success-fee-regulation-34-b/</id>
<updated>2026-10-23T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>An examination of Regulation 34-B(4) of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016, added in 2022, which lets the Committee of Creditors pay a resolution professional a performance-linked incentive of up to Rs 5 crore, treated as a CIRP cost and paid ahead of creditors under Section 53. The author argues this cuts against the Code’s value-maximisation goal and departs from the NCLAT’s earlier position in Ariisto Developers, while accepting the reasoned enhancement of the ordinary fee under the proviso to sub-regulation (2).</summary></entry><entry><title>Resolution in Name, Recovery in Fact: The Operational Creditor and Section 9</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/operational-creditor-and-section-9/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/operational-creditor-and-section-9/</id>
<updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>A column arguing that operational creditors, such as suppliers, file under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code mainly to be paid, and that the insistence of courts on a “resolution” motive is largely unworkable. It traces the tension between Mobilox Innovations v. Kirusa Software, which confined the admission inquiry to debt, default and pre-existing dispute, and Swiss Ribbons, which treats revival as the Code’s aim and recovery as incidental.</summary></entry><entry><title>Can Tata Sons Restructure Its Way Past RBI’s Listing Mandate?</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/tata-sons-restructure-rbi-listing-mandate/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/tata-sons-restructure-rbi-listing-mandate/</id>
<updated>2026-10-20T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>An analysis of whether Tata Sons can cease to be a Core Investment Company, and so avoid the Reserve Bank of India’s listing requirement for Upper Layer NBFCs, by merging operating businesses into itself. The author argues the approach rests on a flawed premise: leaving the CIC category may not take Tata Sons out of the NBFC framework.</summary></entry><entry><title>A Lifelong Ban for a Five-Year Tenure: The Constitutional Infirmity of Rule 7, BCI Rules and Rule 16(2), Tribunal Reforms Rules, 2021</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/rule-7-bci-rules-lifetime-ban-tribunal-members/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/rule-7-bci-rules-lifetime-ban-tribunal-members/</id>
<updated>2026-09-29T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India Rules and Rule 16(2) of the Tribunal Reforms Rules, 2021 bar former members of the NCLT and NCLAT from practising before any Bench of those tribunals, anywhere in India, for life. This article examines whether that restriction can survive constitutional scrutiny.</summary></entry><entry><title>Who Can Afford to Become a Judge?</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/who-can-afford-to-become-a-judge/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/who-can-afford-to-become-a-judge/</id>
<updated>2026-09-22T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>A column on the Supreme Court’s August 2026 decision in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, which reduced the three years of Bar practice required for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination to one. The author argues the decision, widely received as a relaxation, is not one when read in full.</summary></entry><entry><title>The Creditor Takes the Wheel: Control, Custody and the New Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Resolution Process</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/creditor-initiated-insolvency-resolution-process/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/creditor-initiated-insolvency-resolution-process/</id>
<updated>2026-09-17T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>An analysis of the creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process (CIIRP) introduced by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, through a new Chapter IV-A (Sections 58-A to 58-K). A notified class of financial creditors can start the process out of court by appointing a resolution professional, without an admission order from the NCLT, while management remains with the debtor’s board under the professional’s supervision.</summary></entry><entry><title>“Better Abolish This Institution”: Why Homebuyers Have Come to Believe RERA Works for Promoters</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/rera-reform-homebuyer-protection/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/rera-reform-homebuyer-protection/</id>
<updated>2026-08-27T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>A practitioner’s case for a complete overhaul of the real estate regulatory architecture, prompted by the Supreme Court’s February 2026 remarks on the effectiveness of the Real Estate Regulatory Authorities (RERA).</summary></entry><entry><title>Reverse Insolvency: A Judicial Innovation with Unintended Consequences</title><link href="https://vpslaw.in/writing/reverse-insolvency-judicial-innovation/"/><id>https://vpslaw.in/writing/reverse-insolvency-judicial-innovation/</id>
<updated>2024-09-05T00:00:00+05:30</updated><summary>An examination of the “reverse corporate insolvency resolution process”, devised by the NCLAT in Flat Buyers Association v. Umang Realtech to let promoters of real estate projects stay at the helm and complete homebuyers’ units, a concept with no basis in the text of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.</summary></entry></feed>
