Latest news with #Khaitan&Co
Time of India
12-08-2025
- Business
- Time of India
AI suits are here
ETtech Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills ETtech Top legal firms leaning on GenAI tools are cautiously ushering in a radical reform of the profession as they wean away the traditional practice of billing clients by the hour to value delivered services. The legal sector, generally considered slow to adapt, is now actively experimenting with AI. While concerns around confidentiality, billing model, and hallucination persist, Indian law firms are mapping a careful path. This combination of human judgment and machine intelligence could reshape the economics and efficiency of legal practice, provided clients are willing to evolve with it. The transformation is not immediate. However, the growing role of AI in routine legal tasks such as contract drafting, document summarisation, and due diligence is beginning to challenge the very foundation of time-based of Mumbai-headquartered law firm Trilegal Nishant Parikh is seeing tangible improvements in due diligence tasks by using tools like Lucio. 'We follow a mix of hourly and flat-fee rates,' he said. 'Clients want faster results but aren't always willing to pay more. The market is still anchored to time spent. But ideally, I'd want value-based billing to become the norm.'Some firms are going further. Khaitan & Co. has developed its own AI platform, KAI (Khaitan & Co. AI), with tools like and for internal research, drafting, and workflow automation.'Faster analysis and automated document parsing are already showing results,' said Haigreve Khaitan, senior partner. 'But it's still early to attribute billing changes solely to AI. We remain flexible in our structures, but our current billing still depends on complexity, practice area, and client needs.'Firms are clear on their stand that 'AI is an assistant and not a replacement'. 'The 'lawyer in the loop' model is fundamental,' Khaitan emphasised. Kartik Ganpathy, founding partner at IndusLaw, also believes AI brings efficiency but not necessarily savings, at least not yet. 'The technology comes at a cost. Clients expect us to deliver faster, but they're not willing to pay more. We're not seeing profit margins increase yet, but maybe in 4-5 years,' that may allows only experienced lawyers to use GenAI tools, citing prompt quality as a key factor. 'You need at least 2-3 years' experience to get the best results from these tools,' he said. 'About 50-60% of larger firms already use GenAI tools, at least to some extent. 'These tools have been tested thoroughly,' according to Parag Srivastava, partner at Bombay Law Chambers. While BLC is still in the early stages of GenAI adoption, the firm recognises the potential. 'Due diligence has been streamlined massively. But billing models are still hybrid, a mix of hourly, flat, and blended fees. We'll only see a shift to value-based billing if clients see measurable gains.' ButAI hasn't yet moved the needle significantly on profitability. 'We don't make much on diligence work,' Parikh admitted. 'Margins are still very, very low.' Finally, client-side adoption will be the real game changer. 'Right now, there's fixed pricing for some GenAI-driven tasks, which makes sense. But once clients start associating AI with better outcomes, not just faster ones, we'll see serious movement toward value-based billing,' said Vasu Aggarwal, cofounder, Lucio, a widely adopted GenAI legal platform.'The next 12 months are crucial. The Indian market is way ahead of its Western counterparts in GenAI adoption. If that momentum continues, pricing based on value delivered might become a competitive necessity,' added Aggarwal. 'Lucio is a horizontal legal AI platform but adapts vertically to specific needs,' said Aggarwal. 'The most prominent use cases are drafting and due diligence.' GenAI tools like Lucio can cut task time by up to 90% or 20% depending on the type of task. 'If drafting took 75 minutes before, it now takes 15. Summarising a document that took 40 minutes can be done in 10.'While AI hasn't been transformational yet, it's rapidly gaining traction, including in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities.'Adoption will take its natural course,' said Aggarwal. 'Once that happens, the shift toward value-based billing will follow. Right now, there's no uniform model, but the mindset is changing.'
Time of India
24-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
India remains a hotbed for private equity deals in 2025 as foreign funds lead big-ticket investments: Khaitan & Co Survey
Khaitan & Co reports that India's PE/VC market showed strength in 2024 and early 2025. Infrastructure, technology and financial services were active sectors. Large deals increased, with foreign funds playing a key role. Investors favored minority stakes. Open market exits and PE-backed IPOs gained momentum. ESG considerations grew. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre was preferred for dispute resolution. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Despite global economic uncertainty and a slowdown in deal activity worldwide, India's private equity (PE) and venture capital (VC) market continued to display remarkable resilience in 2024 and early 2025, according to a report by law firm Khaitan & Co. The third edition of its proprietary survey, What's Market in Indian Private Equity Deals, reviewed over 440 transactions handled by the firm over the past 3.5 exclusively with The Economic Times, the report highlights that sectors such as infrastructure, technology, financial services, warehousing-led real estate, healthcare, and energy were among the most active areas for PE/VC investments. The report also noted a surge in large deals, with transactions valued at over $1 billion constituting 24% of the total deal volume, while 44% of deals were above $200 million.'While the global investment climate has seen its share of headwinds, India's private equity (PE) market has defied the trend—surging ahead with strength, resilience, and momentum. Backed by a robust capital market and sustained investor interest, India stood out as a key investment destination, attracting strong PE/VC interest,' said Shantanu Gupta, Partner, Khaitan & Co.'Sectors like energy, infrastructure, financial services, technology, and real estate saw strong inflows.'Interestingly, majority stake transactions remained limited to just 12% of the deals, with 88% being minority investments. This trend, according to the report, reflects both promoters' continued interest in retaining control and investors' preference for strategic, long-term bets with operational activity also gained momentum, buoyed by a surge in open market exits and PE-backed IPOs. Global investors reaffirmed their confidence in India, with foreign funds accounting for the majority of the deal value in early 2025—up from the previous year,' said capital played a dominant role, with offshore funds contributing a majority share of deal value in early 2025. The report also points out that India's elevation as the fourth-largest global economy, overtaking Japan, along with deeper capital markets, has further cemented its attractiveness for financial terms of investment structures, the report noted increasing adoption of locked box constructs (seen in 18% of transactions) and a steady preference for 'best efforts' covenants and higher diligence standards during interim periods. Pro-sandbagging clauses and robust ABAC (anti-bribery) and AML (anti-money laundering) warranties with extended survival periods also featured emerging theme is the heightened sensitivity toward ESG (environmental, social and governance) considerations. Though not quantified in the report, legal practitioners flagged ESG as an evolving investment filter among global PE houses operating in arbitration-friendly climate also stood out. Nearly all agreements (96%) incorporated arbitration clauses, with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) emerging as the preferred seat, reinforcing investor comfort in enforceability and dispute resolution.'India's PE/VC investment outlook remains cautiously optimistic, underpinned by solid GDP growth, moderating inflation, and supportive policy measures such as interest rate reductions and targeted tax incentives to boost private consumption,' said Gupta. 'Investor appetite is expected to remain strong in financial services, healthcare, infrastructure, energy and real estate, while the consumer and retail sectors are poised for a rebound as consumption trends improve. Nonetheless, ongoing global trade tensions and geopolitical tensions continue to pose a potential risk to the broader investment climate,' he added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
22-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Got a tax notice for submitting less TDS? CBDT relief may offer respite
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has provided some relief to taxpayers and businesses who have been served tax demand notices for deducting tax at source (TDS) or collecting tax at source (TCS) at normal rates from payees whose Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) had become inoperative for want of Aadhaar linkage. Under the Income-Tax Act, inoperative PANs attract higher TDS/TCS rates of 20 per cent. CBDT has spared deductors and collectors from paying the differential tax and penalties, provided certain conditions are met. What triggered this relief? Several deductors had raised concerns about notices from the tax department demanding additional tax where they applied normal TDS/TCS rates, unaware that the payee's PAN was inactive. 'The CBDT's circular provides significant relief to taxpayers who were saddled with tax demands arising from short deduction or collection on account of a payee's PAN being inoperative due to non-linkage with Aadhaar,' says Ashish Mehta, partner at Khaitan & Co. Who benefits and how? Relief applies in cases where: -Transactions occurred between April 1, 2024 and July 31, 2025, and -The payee's PAN is made operative by September 30, 2025. In such cases, demand notices for short deduction will be quashed after rectification of returns or reprocessing. Example: Consider A buying property worth Rs 1 crore from B in May 2024 and deducting TDS at 1 per cent (Rs 100,000). If B's PAN was inoperative, A was liable to deduct TDS at 20 per cent (Rs 20,00,000), resulting in a tax demand of Rs 19 lakh. 'According to the new circular, A will no longer be required to pay this demand if B's PAN becomes operative by September 30, 2025,' explains Mehta. No penalty or interest if PAN is updated 'If the payee links PAN with Aadhaar within the prescribed timelines, the deductor need not pay any interest or penalty for short deduction,' adds Mehta. What should taxpayers do now? -Verify PAN-Aadhaar linkage of employees, tenants, or sellers before making payments. -Advise payees to complete linkage promptly to avoid higher TDS/TCS rates. -Monitor compliance timelines to ensure eligibility for relief. 'This proactive step is critical for employers, landlords, property buyers, and small businesses to stay out of trouble,' says Mehta.
Mint
13-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Mint
Supreme Court's ‘Thug Life' verdict reinforces cinema's rights. But threat of mob veto still looms
The Supreme Court's direction to the Karnataka government to ensure the release of Kamal Haasan-starrer Thug Life, while expressing concerns over 'extra-judicial' bans, reinforces the freedom and expression and the theatres' right to screen controversial films. But cinemas still hesitate to release such movies unless law enforcement agencies provide effective protection, according to experts. 'The Supreme Court's directive reinforces the principle that freedom of expression cannot be stifled by threats or public pressure," said Tanu Banerjee, partner at Khaitan & Co. 'It sends a strong message that states have a duty to protect lawful film releases, which could encourage similar judicial protection for other contentious works in future." Also Read: Actors ditch urban-centric films for mass-market genres after Covid India has a long history of theatrical releases being disrupted due to protests. This includes Aamir Khan's 2006 film Fanaa, which never released in many theatres in Gujarat after protests against the actor's criticism of the state government's handling of the Narmada dam project. Period drama Padmaavat (2018) faced protests and was banned in many states—the Supreme Court later stayed the state bans. Greenlit, yet under fire The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the Thug Life case reinforces that once the Central Board of Film Certification has granted clearance, neither mobs nor political pressure should be allowed to override that legal right, said Anupam Shukla, partner, Pioneer Legal. 'This directive reinforces the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression, asserting that law and order must prevail over the arbitrary dictates of protesting groups. It sets a benchmark. Future filmmakers can now petition the Supreme Court early if local threats emerge." The Supreme Court indeed case paves the way for theatres to take a strong position on releasing films, despite threats of agitation, and similarly empower authorities to deal with the threats in a proactive manner, according to Niharika Karanjawala-Misra, principal associate at Karanjawala & Co. State governments should provide police protection in such instances where there are either threats of violence or protests which might physically derail a particular screening, she added. If threats of violence are allowed to cancel and overthrow film releases, there will only be an increase in such intimidating behaviour, said Karanjawala-Misra. Also Read: How small southern films are defying the odds at the box office Enforcement on the ground is often weak and motivated by various factors locally. A film producer who did not wish to be named pointed out that state governments can still use the 'law and order" excuse to quietly stall releases using their powers under Section 13 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and there are rarely any real consequences for those who issue threats or intimidate theatres. Screening hangs by security Gaurav Sahay, founder partner at Arthashastra Legal, said that despite favourable judicial orders, the release of controversial films can still be subjected to real and credible threats from fringe groups, political outfits, or religious factions. Judicial pronouncements often require robust implementation by the executive and law enforcement agencies to be truly effective, Sahay said. There are remedies that a filmmaker can seek if their film doesn't release despite court orders. Alay Razvi, managing partner, Accord Juris, pointed out that they can file contempt petitions against state officials for failure to comply with the Supreme Court's directions or seek compensation claims under the public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights. However, the overreliance on judicial relief could also congest the courts with similar public interest litigations. Ultimately, while this prudential check empowers filmmakers, real-world compliance remains uncertain unless states sincerely mobilize law enforcement machinery, according to Razvi. 'Even with legal affirmation and a valid CBFC certificate, filmmakers and theatres may still hesitate–because threats, protests, or unofficial pressure can make screenings risky and commercially unviable. The ruling is a step in the right direction, but without stronger penalties for those who obstruct releases or clearer mechanisms to protect exhibitors, extra-judicial bans can still thrive in practice," said Aishwarya Kaushiq, partner, disputes practice, BTG Advaya. Also Read: Indian films hold ground overseas despite geopolitical tensions The on-ground release can still fall prey to "mob veto", Kaushiq said. 'What truly enables the release of such films is enforcement through effective state machinery. Proactive police protection, unambiguous support from government officials, and swift legal action against those obstructing lawful screenings can make all the difference."
Mint
09-07-2025
- Business
- Mint
Why Indian promoters are no longer rushing to delist
Fewer Indian companies are choosing to delist from stock exchanges, as buoyant market valuations and tighter pricing rules have made share buybacks increasingly expensive for promoters. Voluntary delistings peaked at 47 in FY19 before declining to 45 in FY22, 22 in FY23, 24 in FY24, and just 12 in FY25, the lowest in at least a decade, according to a Mint analysis of exchange data. Since FY21, 272 companies have listed on Indian exchanges, underscoring a broader trend: public markets are attracting more companies than they're losing. Delisting decisions are typically strategic, unlike initial public offerings (IPOs), which are timed to market cycles. A promoter may choose to delist a company to regain full control, to consolidate ownership after a private equity buyout, or to exit costly compliance obligations, especially in cases where trading volumes are low. In some cases, companies are forced to delist due to non-compliance, though these are treated as compulsory delistings. But even voluntary delistings have become harder. First, India's post-pandemic bull run pushed up share prices across the board. Since the delisting floor price is tied to historical trading averages, promoters are now expected to offer a significant premium above already-elevated levels. 'The main reason for promoters to not go ahead with delisting is on account of the bull market valuation," said Anand Lakra, partner at JSA Advocates and Solicitors. 'The expectation from shareholders is to obtain a high premium to the floor price, which is already high in a bull market and is causing the promoters not to embark on the delisting process." The Nifty 50's 10-year average price-to-earnings ratio was at 22.89x till its September 2024 peak and currently stands at 23.37x. Delisting in India requires the company's promoter to buy back all public shares. Until recently, this process relied mainly on the reverse book building (RBB) method, in which shareholders name the price at which they're willing to tender shares—often well above the floor or indicative price. But the RBB system frequently ran into trouble when institutional investors demanded steep premiums, citing hidden value in unlisted assets or real estate. 'The RBB system was often ineffective, especially when large investors quoted very high prices, knowing that the company held valuable assets not reflected in its traded stock price," said Arindam Ghosh, partner at Khaitan & Co. 'As a result, many delisting offers either failed or became too expensive for promoters to accept." One prominent example was Vedanta Ltd's failed delisting in October 2020. The company's promoters offered ₹87.5 per share to buy out public shareholders, but the bid failed after they didn't receive the minimum required acceptance. Media reports indicated shareholder bids went as high as ₹320 per share, making the offer financially unviable. To address these concerns, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) introduced the adjusted book value (ABV) method in September 2024 to calculate the floor price for delisting. This method factors in unlisted subsidiaries, real estate and other hidden assets—often leading to valuations higher than what the public markets reflect. 'While this ensured a more accurate reflection of the company's true worth, in certain cases it further raised the floor price and made delisting even more financially burdensome for promoters," said Ghosh. 'Instead of simplifying the process, it appears this has led to fewer delisting offers, as promoters now face much higher payout obligations to exit the public markets," he added. Simultaneously, Sebi also introduced a fixed-price delisting option, alongside the existing reverse book building process. Under this route, promoters can offer to buy back all public shares at a fixed price that is at least 15% higher than the floor price. 'However, in certain cases the adjusted book value method had already pushed the floor price higher, which means more money for the promoter to shed, the new mode has not really picked up," said Ghosh. The case for staying public For some companies, delisting was once seen as a way to cut compliance costs and regulatory overhead. 'One of the reasons why companies choose to voluntarily delist is the compliance burden that comes with being publicly listed," said V Prashant Rao, director and head of equity capital markets at Anand Rathi Investment Banking. 'Firms with limited resources often struggle to meet quarterly reporting and other regulatory requirements, making the associated costs difficult to justify." But this mindset is evolving. Many promoters now see long-term upside in staying listed. 'Companies—both foreign and domestic—are recognizing the long-term value of remaining listed," said Bhavesh Shah, managing director and head of investment banking at Equirus Group. 'India's capital markets are in a sweet spot, flourishing with robust investor participation and strong backing for quality businesses. This is creating a powerful platform for sustained value creation and companies do not mind doing the compliance part to remain listed." 'Delisting now would mean opting out of that journey and denying stakeholders the opportunity to participate in the upside," he added. A generational shift in promoter mindset may also be playing a role. 'A new generation of promoters has emerged replacing older decision-makers and bringing a fresh perspective that views the capital market as a key opportunity for growth," said Tarun Singh, managing director and founder at Highbrow Securities. 'The Indian economy has stabilized over the past 10-15 years with a lower volatility seen in the markets as before. This, along with a steady inflow of new investors, has created an encouraging environment for companies to remain listed rather than exit the market," he added.
