Bhatt & Joshi Associates

16/09/2026

08/09/2026

Foreign universities at GIFT City are well known.

But the legal mechanism behind them is far stranger.

The Government did not amend the UGC Act or create a new education law.

Instead, on 23 May 2022, courses offered by foreign universities in financial management, fintech, science, technology, engineering and mathematics within the IFSC were notified as a “financial service” under the IFSCA Act, 2019.

That reclassification brought them under IFSCA, rather than the domestic higher-education regulatory framework.

The result?

Foreign university campuses inside GIFT IFSC operate under a regulatory regime designed for an international financial centre.

Their transactions are in freely convertible foreign currency. Books are maintained in foreign currency. Profits can be repatriated. Degrees are conferred directly by the foreign parent.

And the proposed 2026 IBC Regulations would introduce further changes, including a global top-500 ranking requirement and a 10% cap on online course credits.

The important distinction:

GIFT City → IFSCA Regulations.
Elsewhere in India → UGC Regulations, 2023.

Same country. Different regulatory regimes.

Education is on the Concurrent List, while Entry 66 of List I gives Parliament power over coordination and determination of standards in higher education. Whether this regulatory mechanism is constitutionally valid remains unresolved.

But the bigger question is this:

What else can be moved outside its governing regulatory framework by simply reclassifying it as something else?

Sources in the comments.

IndianLaw HigherEducation Governance

03/09/2026

He bought the land in 1972. A revenue officer cancelled the sale in 1976 — on his own motion, with nobody complaining. Appeal, revision, writ petition: all dismissed.

He won in the Supreme Court in 1996, and not because he proved the officer wrong. Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 prescribes no time limit for exercising that power. His counsel argued the officer had simply taken too long.

The authority came from another landholder, from another decade — Patel Raghav Natha, whose permission of 1960 was cancelled fourteen months later by a Commissioner. In 1969 the Supreme Court held that though Section 211 of the Land Revenue Code sets no limitation, the power must still be exercised within a reasonable time.

One man's fight, borrowed by a stranger twenty-seven years later.

Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, (1997) 6 SCC 71
State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, (1969) 2 SCC 187

There's still no fixed outer limit. Fourteen months was too long in one case. Four years in the other. It turns on facts, every time.

Educational and informational content only. Not legal advice or solicitation.

PropertyLaw LandDispute CaseLaw LegalEducation Gujarat Ahmedabad

02/09/2026

Can you defame someone who has been dead for 60 years?
Yes — under certain circumstances, Indian criminal law can still treat an imputation concerning a deceased person as defamation.
But there is a catch.
Who gets to complain?
That is where this case gets much more interesting.
In Pune, a criminal defamation case arising from Rahul Gandhi’s 2023 London remarks concerning V.D. Savarkar is now at the cross-examination stage.
And beneath the political controversy is a surprisingly technical question of law:
Can a person complain about the reputation of someone who is no longer alive?
The answer takes us through:
→ Explanation 1 to Section 499 IPC
→ Section 199 CrPC
→ the meaning of “person aggrieved”
→ the limits of standing
→ the requirement of sanction in a separate speech prosecution
→ and the Supreme Court’s constitutional treatment of criminal defamation.
But here's the distinction that matters most:
Taking cognisance ≠ finding guilt.
Having standing ≠ proving defamation.
Surviving a procedural challenge ≠ winning on the merits.
Those are three different stages — and confusing them can completely change how you understand a criminal speech case.
Swipe through. We’ve mapped the legal architecture.
Then tell us:
Should a close relative be able to complain about defamation of a deceased person — or should the right to protect reputation end with the person’s death?
Save this for the next time you see a criminal defamation case reduced to a headline.

01/09/2026

Why Big Borrowers Pay Pennies?
India's Legal Debt Evasion EXPLAINED

In this video, we delve into the complex world of India's legal debt evasion, exploring the reasons behind big borrowers paying remarkably low amounts on their debts. Through a detailed analysis, we explain the legal loopholes and tactics used by large corporations and individuals to minimize their debt repayments, often leaving them paying just pennies on the dollar. By examining real-life cases and the legal framework surrounding debt evasion in India, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon and its implications for the country's economy. Whether you're an economics enthusiast, a business professional, or simply someone interested in understanding the intricacies of India's financial system, this video is designed to provide you with insightful information and perspectives on the topic.
#22000

26/08/2026

A bank can take possession of your property without a court order.
Challenging that costs nothing. Appealing it costs fifty percent.
Almost everyone has this backwards. →
Under SARFAESI, the demand notice runs sixty days. Then Section 13(4) permits possession, takeover, or sale. No court order anywhere in that sequence.
Section 17 is the challenge — an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, within forty-five days. It carries no deposit condition at all.
The fifty percent sits one level above it. Section 18, the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Reducible to twenty-five for reasons recorded in writing. Never below.
That split is deliberate. As originally enacted, the Act demanded seventy-five percent before the DRT would hear you — measured against a figure the creditor named and no tribunal had examined. In Mardia Chemicals (2004) the Supreme Court struck that condition down as ultra vires Article 14, while upholding substantially the whole of the statute.
The reasoning was placement. A first hearing cannot be priced. An appeal can.
Which leaves the edge on slide 9. Section 18 pegs the deposit to the debt as claimed by the creditor or as determined by the tribunal — whichever is less. Where the tribunal has determined nothing, only one number exists on the record.
Your first hearing is free. Your second opinion is priced by your opponent's arithmetic.
Send this to whoever told you the fifty percent applies at the DRT.
⁠—
Published for general legal education. Not legal advice, not an advertisement, and not a solicitation of work. No lawyer–client relationship arises from this post.
MardiaChemicals Article14 IndianLaw LegalEducation

21/08/2026

I’m looking forward to meeting you at LEGAL SEMINAR — 2026 orgabised by Rajkot Bar Association

Let’s talk about DECODING DIGITAL EVIDENCE under BNSS & BSA — and what happens when digital evidence enters the trial court.

From hash values and authenticity to data privacy and admissibility, the seminar will explore the increasingly important questions surrounding electronic evidence in contemporary litigation.

📍 Atmiya University, Rajkot
📅 23 August 2026 | Sunday
⏰ 08:00 AM onwards

SEE YOU THERE!

— Aaditya Bhatt
Advocate, Gujarat High Court

This communication is for informational purposes regarding the seminar.

18/08/2026

Legal advice isn't just about answering what's asked — it's about knowing what should have been asked.

Advocate Chandni Joshi, Senior Partner at Bhatt & Joshi Associates, on what separates competent counsel from counsel that actually changes outcomes.

BhattJoshiAssociates WomenInLaw LawFirmIndia

18/08/2026

N. Chandrasekaran just said he won't seek a third term as Tata Sons chairman.

Most coverage is reading this as a succession story. It isn't just that.

Buried in the reporting: one condition he reportedly couldn't accept was a guarantee that Tata Sons stays unlisted — a promise that runs straight into the RBI's Upper Layer NBFC classification, Section 166 of the Companies Act, and a 2021 Supreme Court ruling on Tata Sons' own Articles of Association.

Three different bodies of law — financial regulation, company law, and trust law — are now pulling the same shareholding in three directions. None of them outranks the others.

Swipe through for the statute, the precedent, and the question nobody's answered yet — not who chairs Tata Sons next, but which law gets the last word.

⚖️ For general legal awareness only, not legal advice or solicitation — complies with Rule 36, Part VI, Chapter II, Section IV of the Bar Council of India Rules.

LegalAnalysis TataGroup RBI NBFC CorporateGovernance BhattAndJoshi