Supreme Court Lets the Fortis Forensic Audit Proceed, With a Caveat
On 25 September, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order of 31 August directing a forensic audit of Fortis Healthcare's transactions. The audit arises from Daiichi Sankyo's long-running effort to enforce a 2016 arbitral award against the company's former promoters, Malvinder and Shivinder Singh; Daiichi puts the amount now outstanding at roughly Rs 5,300 crore. The High Court appointed S. Ramanand Aiyar and Co. to examine, within six months, the erosion of the Singh family's holding in Fortis and related transactions involving banks, financial institutions, IHH Healthcare and RHT Health Trust.
Fortis, through Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that it was never a party to the arbitration or a judgment debtor and that the High Court had recorded adverse observations against it without any specific allegation. The Supreme Court let the audit go ahead but clarified that the High Court's observations against Fortis were tentative, recorded only to support the direction for an audit, would not bind the auditor and would not influence any other proceeding. "The forensic audit shall be conducted independently without being influenced by those observations," the Court said.
For companies adjacent to enforcement proceedings against a former promoter, the lesson is twofold. Courts will not lightly stop a forensic audit once ordered. But a company that is not itself a judgment debtor can insist that findings against it be made only on the audit's results, not on interim judicial observations.
Delhi High Court: Full Court Fee Refund on Settlement, Without a Separate Application
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held in Hitech Enterprises v. Modern Construction Company Delhi that a party who settles a suit, counter-claim or appeal amicably at any stage is entitled to a full refund of court fees as a substantive statutory right, and that no separate application is needed. The ruling applies the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2026, in force since 6 March, which substituted Section 16 of the Court Fees Act as it operates in Delhi. Under the earlier Delhi regime, a private settlement earned only fifty percent and only if it came before evidence was recorded. That distinction is gone. For commercial litigants who pay substantial ad valorem fees and settle mid-stream, the refund is now automatic on the disposal order.
Supreme Court Asks the BCI Whether Its Age Cap Can Survive
On 25 September, the Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of India whether it would withdraw the upper age limit it prescribed for admission to five-year integrated law courses. The limit, twenty years for general-category candidates with relaxation for reserved categories, was revived by a BCI notification of September 2016 and stayed by the Supreme Court in March 2017; it has not operated since. The question before a Bench of the Chief Justice, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana is whether the BCI's power under the Advocates Act to set minimum qualifications can be read to include a maximum age at all. Justice Bagchi questioned the residential-course rationale, noting not all five-year courses are residential. The matter returns in two weeks.
E-Commerce Compliance: 1 January 2027
The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026, notified on 9 September by G.S.R. 789(E), take effect on 1 January 2027. Prior-price display, sponsored-listing disclosure, ranking manipulation prohibition, consumer data consent for private-label promotion, and mandatory NCH integration are all operational changes that touch pricing systems, search algorithms, consent flows and grievance tooling simultaneously. Four months is less time than it appears.
The BCI, One Year On
Last month's issue reported on the Bar Council from two angles: the withdrawn direction to defer enrolment of an entire NALSAR batch, and the Supreme Court's order that state bar councils co-opt two women members each. This month the same Bench is asking whether the BCI's qualification-setting power stretches to an age ceiling. The pattern across the two issues is consistent: the courts are examining the regulator's powers at their statutory edges and asking, each time, where exactly the authority comes from and whether it reaches this far.