Search Publications

[1] Union of India v Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836, 853; Kranti Associates (P) Ltd v Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, paras 47–51.[2] Nyāya Sūtra 1.1.32; see also Jonardon Ganeri, ‘Ancient Indian Logic as a Theory of Case-Based Reasoning’ (2003) 31 Journal of Indian Philosophy 33, 35–39.[3] Bimal Krishna Matilal, Jonardon Ganeri and Heeraman Tiwari (eds), The Character of Logic in India (State University of New York Press 1998) 31–59.[4] Jonardon Ganeri, ‘Ancient Indian Logic as a Theory of Case-Based Reasoning’ (2003) 31 Journal of Indian Philosophy 33.[5] Kisor Kumar Chakrabarti, Classical Indian Philosophy of Mind: The Nyāya Dualist Tradition (State University of New York Press 1999) 115–140.[6] Nyāya Sūtra 1.1.32; see also Stephen H Phillips, Classical Indian Metaphysics: Refutations of Realism and the Emergence of ‘New Logic’ (Open Court 1997) 30–34.[7] Bimal Krishna Matilal, Perception: An Essay on Classical Indian Theories of Knowledge (Clarendon Press 1986) 214–225.[8] Ganeri (n 2) 39–44.[9] Matilal, Ganeri and Tiwari (eds) (n 3) 1–30.[10] See Nyāya Sūtra 1.2.4–1.2.8; Karl H Potter (ed), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol 2: Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology: The Tradition of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika up to Gaṅgeśa (Motilal Banarsidass 1977) 234–252. [11] Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, 153–54.[12] Union of India v Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836, 853.[13] Kranti Associates (P) Ltd v Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, paras 47–51; Shroff v Mistry (2011) 2 SCC 380, para 17.[14] Ganeri (n 2) 35–45; Matilal, Ganeri and Tiwari (eds) (n 3) 31–59.[15] Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (n 11) 153–54.[16] ibid 163–64.[17] Kranti Associates (n 13) paras 47–51.[18] State of Orissa v Sudhansu Sekhar Misra AIR 1968 SC 647, 651; Union of India v Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6 SCC 44, 50.[19] Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353, paras 59–70; K S Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, paras 310–318 (Chandrachud J).[20] Kranti Associates (n 13) paras 47–51.[21] Jonardon Ganeri, ‘Ancient Indian Logic as a Theory of Case-Based Reasoning’ (2003) 31 Journal of Indian Philosophy 33; Bimal Krishna Matilal, The Character of Logic in India (State University of New York Press 1998).

1 Yashraj Bais , Privacy and Data Protection in India: An Analysis, 4 (5) IJLMH Page 1793 - 1804 (2021), DOI:https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.1121462 Jain.P.Gyanchandani, M& Khare, N.Big Data Privacy: A Technical prespectiveand Review. J                         Big Data3,25(2016), hppt://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-016-0059-y3 Christopher Kuner, Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Fred H. Cate, Orla Lynskey, Christopher Millard, The rise of cyber security and its impact on data protection, International Data Privacy Law, Volume 7, Issue 2, May 2017, Pages 73–75, https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx0094 I, Indu& Anand, Rubesh& Bhaskar, Vidhyacharan. (2018). Identity and access management in cloud environment: Mechanisms and challenges. 21. 574-588. 10.1016/j.jestch.2018.05.010.5 Basu D.D, “Commentary on the Constitution of India”4772 (LexisNexis, India, 59thedn., 20156 Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom 8 (Atheneum Publication, New York, 1970).7 Margaret Mead and Elena Calas, “Child-training Ideas in a post-revolutionary context: Soviet Russia”, in Margaret Mead and Martha Wolfenstein (eds.), Childhood in contemporary Cultures, 179, 190-191 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1955)8 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Doubleday Anchor Books, New York, 19599 Morroe Berger and Theodore Abel, et.al., Freedom and Control in Modern Society 190 (D. Van NostrandCompany,NewYork,1954),availableat:https://archive.org/stream/ in.ernet. dli .2015 .498862 / 2015.498862.Freedom-and_djvu.txt (last visited on August 17, 2025)10 Nuth Mull v/s Zuka-Oolah Beg Sr.D.A.N.W.P.R.1855, P.9211 Gokal Prasad v.Radho ILR Allahabad (10), 358 (1888), p. 384.12 Gunga Prasad v. Salik Prasad S.D.A.N.W.P. Rep. 1862 Vol. II, 21713 Goor Das v. Manohar Das N.W.P.H.C. Rep. 1867, 26914 Ram Baksh v. Ram Sookh N.W.P.H.C. Rep. 1867, 26915 Percy H. Winfield, “Privacy” 47, L.Q.R. 29-30 (193116 ‘Constituent Assembly of India Debates (Proceedings)-Vol. III’, 29 April 1947,available at https:// 164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Debates/Cadebatefiles/C29041947.html (Last visited on August 17, 2025)17 Rao, B. Shiva, (ed.),The Framing of India’s Constitution,(ULP,Agra,2015)18 Rao, B. Shiva, (ed.),The Framing of India’s Constitution,(ULP,Agra,201519 Rao, B. Shiva, (ed.),The Framing of India’s Constitution,(ULP,Agra,2015)20 Kharak Sing v/s /State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 129521 Gobind v/s State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 137822 V.S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramkrishnan AIR 1980 SC 18523 R. Rajgopal v/s State of Tamilnadu AIR 1994 SCC 63224 R.M.Malkani v/s State of Maharashtra AIR 1973SC 15725 People’s Union for Civil Liberties v/s Union of India AIR 1997 SC 56826 PUCL v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 30127 Indu Jain v. Forbes Incorporated, IA 12993/2006 in CS(OS) 2172/2006)28 Mr. X v. Hospital Z AIR 1999 SC 495, (1998) 8 SCC 29629 Mr. X v. Hospital Z AIR 1999 SC 495, (1998) 8 SCC 29630 Sharada v. Dharampal,(2003) 4 SCC 49331 www.legalaffairs.gov.in/ncerwc-report (Last visited on August 17, 2025)32 www.legalaffairs.gov.in/ncerwc-report (Last visited on August 17, 2025)33 AI and Privacy: The Privacy Concerns Surrounding AI, Its Potential Impact on Personal Data,” The Economic Times, Apr. 25, 2023, available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/how-to/ai-and-privacy-the-privacy-concerns-surrounding-ai-its-potential-impact-on-personal-data/articleshow/  99738234.cms?from=mdr (last visited on August 5, 2025)]34 “Privacy,” The Economic Times, Topic Overview available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ topic/privacy(last visited on [May 5 , 2025]).35 3 things privacy professionals should consider at the intersection of AI and data privacy” (Google Checks Team), Google AI Blog, Feb. 5, 2024.36 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),” Investopedia, available at https://www.investopedia.com/ terms/g/general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr.asp (last visited on May 5, 202537 Recent Cases on Data Protection and Privacy in India,” BananaIP Counsels Intellepedia, available at https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/data-protection-privacy-recent-cases-india-law/ (last visited on August 5, 2025)]38 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023), (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India), available athttps://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/ 2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf (last visited on August 5, 2025)39 Recent Cases on Data Protection and Privacy in India,” BananaIP Counsels Intellepedia, available at https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/data-protection-privacy-recent-cases-india-law/ (last visited on August 5, 2025)]40 Supreme Court Judgement on Privacy and Its Effect on Business,” ICSI Journal, available at https:// www.icsi.edu/media/filer_public/a7/39/a739c660-11ac-429d-b151-ae3e3b22b6a4/ supreme_court_judgement_on_privacy_and_its_effect_on_business.pdf (last visited on [August 10,2025)]

[1] Information Technology Act, 2000, sec 21[2] Debarati Halder & K. Jaishankar, Cyber Crimes Against Women in India (SAGE Publications 2016).[3] Pavan Duggal, Cyber Law: The Indian Perspective (Saakshar Law Publications 2002).[4] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, sec 47 of 2023[5] INDIA CONSTITUTION. article 14, 19, 21.[6] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023,[7] Avneet Kaur, Cybercrime Against Women in India: Challenges and Possible Solutions, in The Techno-Legal Dynamics of Cyber Crimes in Industry 5.0 (Wiley 2025)[8] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, §§ 66C–67A, India Code (2000).[9] INDIA CONSTITUTION arts. 14, 19(1)(a), 21.[10] Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Criminal Laws, https://www.mha.gov.in/en/commoncontent/new-criminal-laws (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).[11] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.[12] State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti, C.C. No. 4680 of 2004 (Addl. Chief Metro. Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai Nov. 5, 2004).[13] Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2004 SCC OnLine Del 1160 : (2005) 79 DRJ 576, rev’d on other grounds, Criminal Appeal No. 1483 of 2009 (S.C. Apr. 27, 2012).[14] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.[15] Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703.[16] Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC 18; Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 657.[17] INDIA CONSTITUTION. art. 14.[18] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.

[1] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 7.[2] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 11.[3] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 16.[4] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, ss 34, 36.[5] K K Modi v K N Modi (1998) 3 SCC 573.[6] South Delhi Municipal Corporation v SMS Ltd 2025 INSC 1165.[7] Alchemist Hospitals Ltd v ICT Health Technology Services India Pvt Ltd 2025 INSC 1289.[8] Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt Ltd v Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd 2026 INSC 384.[9] Rukmanibai Gupta v Collector, Jabalpur, (1980) 4 SCC 556.[10] Id.[11] Id.[12] Id.[13] Jagdish Chander v Ramesh Chander, (2007) 5 SCC 719.[14] Limitation Act 1963, s 14.[15] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 12, sch 7.[16] Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s 80.[17] Supreme Court Bar Association v Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409.[18] Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov (2007) UKHL 40.[19] Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd (2009) SGCA 24.[20] UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (as amended in 2006), art 7.[21] Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (adopted 10 June 1958, entered into force 7 June 1959) art II.[22] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, proposed s 34A.

[1]Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (CGST Act), s 2(62), 2(63) and 16(1). The Act is supplemented by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (IGST Act) and State GST Acts.[2]'Fake ITC claims detection by central GST officers up 51% at Rs 36,374 crore in FY24' Deccan Herald (29 July 2024) https://www.deccanherald.com/business/fake-itc-claims-detection-by-central-gst-officers-up-51-at-rs-36374-crore-in-fy24-3126661 accessed 5 October 2026.[3]Saptarshi Datta, Himanshu Thakkar and Siddharth Dabhade, 'Combating GST Input Tax Credit Fraud in India: Forensic Accounting, Data Analytics, and Legal Enforcement Strategies' (2026) 5(1) International Journal of Management, Public Policy and Research 37, 42.[4]Aditya Kalra, 'Exclusive-Haier, Godrej, Blue Star failed to detect fake e-waste recycling claims, India notice shows' (Reuters, 30 September 2026), syndicated at https://1027wbow.com/2026/09/30/exclusive-haier-godrej-blue-star-failed-to-detect-fake-e-waste-recycling-claims-india-notice-shows/ accessed 5 October 2026.[5]Eicher Motors Ltd v Union of India (1999) 2 SCC 361.[6]Jayam & Co v Assistant Commissioner (2016) 15 SCC 125, paras 11–12.[7]CGST Act, s 16(2)(a)–(c). The conditions were restructured by the Finance Act 2021 and the Finance Act 2022, with effect from 1 January 2022 and 1 October 2022 respectively, which inserted s 16(2)(aa) (supplier's furnishing of invoice details in the outward statement, communicated to the recipient) and amended s 16(2)(c)..[8]CGST Act, s 155.[9]The CGST Act does not define a 'fake invoice'. The term is used in a Standard Operating Procedure circulated by the CBIC (Commissioner (Investigation)) to the GST Council Secretariat, which describes fake invoices as GST invoices raised by an entity without actual supply of goods or services or payment of GST: 'Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Tackling Fake Invoice Cases' https://gstcouncil.gov.in/sites/default/files/SOP-for-Tackling-Fake-Invoice.pdf (as cited in the secondary literature; I have accessed the text as reproduced at https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/sop-utilising-fake-invoice-issuers-dataset-sgst-authorities.html accessed 5 October 2026).[10]CGST Act, ss 73 and 74 (and, for periods from 2024-25, s 74A) refer to input tax credit 'wrongly availed or utilised'. The distinction matters because blocking the electronic credit ledger under CGST Rules 2017, r 86A operates on credit that is available but not yet utilised.[11]Michael Keen and Stephen Smith, 'VAT Fraud and Evasion: What Do We Know and What Can Be Done?' (2006) 59 National Tax Journal 861.[12]Datta, Thakkar and Dabhade (n 3).[13]CGST Act, s 16(2) and (4); CGST Rules 2017, r 36(1) (documents on which credit may be taken). Section 16(5) and (6), inserted by the Finance (No 2) Act 2024.[14]CGST Act, s 16(2), Explanation.[15]CGST Act, ss 37 and 41 as amended by the Finance Act 2022; GSTR-1 (outward supplies), GSTR-2B (auto-generated statement of ITC) and GSTR-3B (summary return) are the operative returns. The GST portal's Invoice Management System, introduced in late 2024, lets recipients accept, reject or keep pending invoices before GSTR-2B is generated: GSTN, 'Invoice Management System' advisory https://tutorial.gst.gov.in/downloads/news/revised_advisory_on_ims.pdf accessed 5 October 2026.[16]CGST Act, ss 35 and 36.[17]CGST Act, s 31; CGST Rules 2017, rr 46 and 48..[18]CGST Rules 2017, r 138.[19]CGST Act, ss 136 and 145.[20]CGST Act, ss 73, 74 and 74A (inserted by the Finance (No 2) Act 2024 for financial years 2024-25 onwards). Under s 74, voluntary payment before notice attracts a penalty of 15%, within 30 days of notice 25%, within 30 days of the order 50%, failing which the penalty is equal to the tax. Section 74A preserves a graded structure, with sixty-day windows in the fraud limb.[21]CGST Act, s 122(1)(ii), (vii) and (1A).[22]CBIC, Circular No 171/03/2022-GST (6 July 2022), as summarised in 'Fake Invoice | Applicability of Penalties & Demand | CBIC Clarification' https://gsthero.com/blog/fake-invoice-applicability-of-penalties-demand-cbic-clarification/ accessed 5 October 2026.[23]CGST Act, s 132(1)(b), (c), (1)(i)–(iv), (4) and (5).[24]CGST Act, s 135.[25]Radhika Agarwal v Union of India 2025 INSC 272 (SC, 27 February 2025).[26]CGST Act, ss 67 and 83; CGST Rules 2017, r 86A. On the standard for r 86A and its relation to s 83, see Raghav Agarwal v Commissioner of Central Tax and GST WP(C) 10980/2024 (Delhi HC, 24 September 2024) (Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta JJ).[27]CGST Act, s 29(2); CGST Rules 2017, rr 21 and 21A.[28]CBIC, Instruction No 02/2024-GST, F No CBIC-20/16/30/2020-GST (12 August 2024) https://cbic-gst.gov.in/pdf/instruction-02-2024-GST-12082024.pdf.[29]Marwin Heinemann and Wojciech Stiller, 'Digitalization and Cross-Border Tax Fraud: Evidence from E-Invoicing in Italy' (2025) 32 International Tax and Public Finance 195; Matthieu Bellon and others, 'Digitalization to Improve Tax Compliance: Evidence from VAT E-Invoicing in Peru' (2022) 210 Journal of Public Economics 104661.[30]'GST revenues remain high while fake invoicing menace continues' Deccan Herald (opinion) https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/gst-revenues-remain-high-while-fake-invoicing-menace-continues-1228984.html accessed 5 October 2026..[31]CBIC Instruction 02/2024-GST (n 28).[32]Kalra (n 4).[33]ibid. Indian outlets report the credit amounts in rupees at roughly Rs 3.53 crore (Haier), Rs 1.79 crore (Blue Star) and Rs 1.53 crore (Godrej): 'Haier, Godrej and Blue Star Face Scrutiny Over E-Waste Tax Credit Claims' The420.in https://the420.in/haier-godrej-blue-star-e-waste-tax-credit-claims/ accessed 5 October 2026.[34]Kalra (n 4).[35]ibid.[36]State of Karnataka v Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt Ltd Civil Appeal No 230 of 2023 and connected appeals (SC, 13 March 2023) 2023 INSC 212 (MR Shah and CT Ravikumar JJ).[37]Ecom Gill (n 36) para 9.1.[38]Ecom Gill (n 36) paras 9.1 and 10.[39]Ecom Gill (n 36) para 13.[40]Ecom Gill (n 36) para 14.[41]Ecom Gill (n 36) para 11.[42]Sumati Dayal v Commissioner of Income Tax 1995 Supp (2) SCC 453.[43]Arise India Ltd v Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, Delhi (Delhi HC, 26 October 2017), special leave petition dismissed in Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, Delhi v Arise India Ltd (SC, 10 January 2018). The Delhi High Court held that s 9(2)(g) of the Delhi VAT Act, in so far as it denied credit to bona fide purchasers for the seller's default, violated arts 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.[44]Nitesh Jain, 'Supreme Court Judgement in case of Ecom Gill on ITC & Implications under GST' TaxGuru (24 March 2023) https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/supreme-court-judgement-case-ecom-gill-implications-gst.html accessed 5 October 2026.[45]Anil Rice Mill v State of Uttar Pradesh Writ Tax No 886 of 2023 (Allahabad HC, 14 August 2024) (Piyush Agrawal J); see the account in PwC, 'Burden to prove ITC eligibility under the GST law is on taxpayer' (Tax Insights, 20 August 2024) https://www.pwc.in/assets/pdfs/news-alert/tax-insights/2024/pwc_tax_insights_20_august_2024_burden_to_prove_itc_eligibility_under_the_gst_law_is_on_taxpayer.pdf accessed 5 October 2026..[46]The Allahabad High Court has also distinguished Ecom Gill on its facts where movement and return compliance were established: see the account of Writ Tax No 3829 of 2025 (17 December 2025) in 'No Fraud, No Jurisdiction: Allahabad HC Draws a Clear Line under GST Section 74' TaxGuru https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/fraud-jurisdiction-allahabad-high-court-draws-clear-line-gst-section-74.html accessed 5 October 2026..[47]Arise India (n 43).[48]Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), in force from 1 July 2024.[49]BSA, ss 57, 61 and 63 and Schedule. The BSA replaced s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, whose certificate requirement was authoritatively construed in Anvar PV v PK Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1. I rely on the secondary accounts of the Schedule's form, e.g. 'Electronic evidence under the BSA, 2023' iPleaders https://blog.ipleaders.in/electronic-evidence-under-the-bsa-2023/ accessed 5 October 2026.[50]CGST Act, ss 136 and 145. I have not examined whether s 145 has been conformed to the BSA's terminology.[51]BSA, s 39 (expert opinion, corresponding to s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872); Information Technology Act 2000, s 79A.[52]Sumati Dayal (n 42).[53]Hindustan Steel Ltd v State of Orissa (1969) 2 SCC 627.[54]Andaman Timber Industries v Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 15 SCC 748.[55]CBIC Instruction 02/2024-GST (n 28).[56]Datta, Thakkar and Dabhade (n 3) 45; Madan and Sharma (n 3) 6–7..[57]'Delhi government's GST dept unearths Rs 347 crore "fake billing scam"' Deccan Herald (PTI) https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/india%2Fdelhi-governments-gst-dept-unearths-rs-347-crore-fake-billing-scam-1066953.html accessed 5 October 2026. The report describes an official statement; the allegations had not been adjudicated.[58]Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1..[59]Joined Cases C-439/04 and C-440/04 Axel Kittel v Belgian State and Belgian State v Recolta Recycling SPRL ECLI:EU:C:2006:446, paras 56–61.[60]Council Directive (EU) 2025/516 of 11 March 2025 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards VAT rules for the digital age; Heinemann and Stiller (n 29).[61]Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353; Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (Aadhaar) (2019) 1 SCC 1.[62]CGST Act, s 168; Commissioner of Central Excise v Ratan Melting and Wire Industries (2008) 13 SCC 1.[63]On legitimate expectation generally see Navjyoti Co-operative Group Housing Society v Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 477.[64]CGST Act, s 75(4) and (6).[65]Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd v Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496; State of Uttar Pradesh v Sudhir Kumar Singh (2021) 19 SCC 706.[66]CGST Act, ss 107–112.

[1]Amanda Silberling, ‘Builder.ai Was Once Worth $1.5B. Now It’s Filing for Bankruptcy’ TechCrunch (20 May 2025); ‘Builder.ai Files for Bankruptcy After Creditors Seize Accounts’ Bloomberg (5 June 2025).[2]Thomas Claburn, ‘Builder.ai Coded Itself into a Corner – Now It’s Bankrupt’ The Register (21 May 2025); on the underlying allegations of overstated automation see WebProNews, ‘Builder.ai’s Collapse: AI Hype Fuels $1.5B Startup’s 2025 Bankruptcy’ (30 July 2025).[3]Raghav Krishna Agnihotri and Madhav Krishna Agnihotri, ‘Reconceptualising the IBC for AI: A Case for Asset Stacks’ (Blog post, 2026).[4]Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, s 3(27).[5]Agnihotri and Agnihotri (n 3).[6]ibid (n 1).[7]ibid (n 4).[8]Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, s 3(27); see also text to (n 5) above.[9]Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, s 18(f).[10]ibid s 18, Explanation (a).[11]Victory Iron Works Ltd v Jitendra Lohia, Civil Appeal Nos 1743 and 1782 of 2021 (Supreme Court of India, 14 March 2023) (V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal JJ).[12]ibid, holding that development rights constitute ‘property’ under s 3(27) of the IBC and hence ‘assets’ under ss 18(f) and 25(2)(a) of the Code.[13]Victory Iron Works (n 12).[14]State Bank of India v Union of India, Civil Appeal No 1810 of 2021 (Supreme Court of India, 13 February 2026).[15]Report of the Insolvency Law Committee (Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, March 2018).[16]Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd v Amit Gupta (2021) 7 SCC 209.[17]Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, s 25(2)(a).[18]ibid s 18(f); see (n 10).[19]Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, s 14.[20]Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India), s 8.[21]Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, recognising informational privacy as an incident of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under article 21 of the Constitution of India, and forming the constitutional foundation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023.[22]Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India), s 16.[23]Federal Trade Commission v Toysmart.com LLC, 2000 WL 34016434 (D Mass 2000); In re Toysmart.com LLC, Case No 00-13995-CJK (Bankr D Mass 2000).[24]Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act 2005 (US), inserting 11 USC § 332 (consumer privacy ombudsman) and amending 11 USC § 363(b)(1) to restrict the sale or lease of personally identifiable information inconsistent with a debtor’s stated privacy policy.[25]In re 23andMe Holding Co, United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Missouri (2025), Report of the Consumer Privacy Ombudsman.[26]Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, art 10.[27]Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, reg 30, as considered in Victory Iron Works (n 12).[28]ibid (n 1).