Arbitration
Our team handles arbitration with precision, drafting robust arbitration clauses and representing clients before leading arbitral forums. We ensure enforceable outcomes and minimal disruption to commercial operations.
Mediation
We prioritize amicable resolution through structured mediation preserving relationships while resolving disputes efficiently. SLH facilitates neutral, outcome-focused dialogue that avoids prolonged litigation and protects business continuity.
Dispute Resolution
We resolve commercial, civil, and criminal disputes through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or litigation always with a focus on business continuity and strategic outcomes. Our approach minimizes disruption and preserves relationships.
Real Estate
Our team provides comprehensive legal support for property transactions, leasing, and development agreements. With deep expertise in land laws and regulatory approvals, we protect investments and enable smooth, risk-mitigated execution.
Banking & Labour Law
We help businesses navigate financial regulations and employment frameworks with precision. From loan documentation and debt recovery to workplace policies and compliance audits, we ensure legal alignment without compromising agility.
Corporate & Commercial
SLH acts as embedded counsel, guiding businesses on what to sign, what to avoid, and how to structure deals that align with long-term goals. We draft, vet, and negotiate contracts that balance legal protection with commercial clarity.
Shiv Puri Reviews 2
SLH provided exceptional legal counsel during our company’s merger. Their attention to detail and strategic approach ensured a smooth transaction with no complications. The team’s professionalism and expertise gave us complete confidence throughout the process. Their responsiveness to our queries and ability to explain complex legal matters in simple terms made the entire experience seamless. We couldn’t have asked for better representation during such a critical business milestone. The dedication shown by the Shiv Law House team went beyond our expectations. They truly understood our business needs and provided tailored solutions that protected our interests at every step. Shiv Suri Senior Consultant | Tech vision solutions
Shiv Suri Review
SLH provided exceptional legal counsel during our company’s merger. Their attention to detail and strategic approach ensured a smooth transaction with no complications. The team’s professionalism and expertise gave us complete confidence throughout the process. Their responsiveness to our queries and ability to explain complex legal matters in simple terms made the entire experience seamless. We couldn’t have asked for better representation during such a critical business milestone. The dedication shown by the Shiv Law House team went beyond our expectations. They truly understood our business needs and provided tailored solutions that protected our interests at every step. Shiv Suri Senior Consultant | Tech vision solutions
How Courts Interpret Ambiguous Clauses in Commercial Contracts
A practical explainer for business leaders and legal teams Contracts are meant to clarify expectations. But in commercial settings, they often do the opposite. Language that seemed straightforward during negotiation can take on multiple meanings when disputes arise. So what happens when a clause is ambiguous? How do courts decide what the parties actually intended? Here’s how the law approaches it and what you should keep in mind when drafting or reviewing your agreements. Courts don’t just look at the literal words. They ask: What would a reasonable person, with access to the same background knowledge as the parties at the time of signing, have understood this clause to mean? This “objective intention” test is central to modern contract interpretation. If the clause still lends itself to two plausible readings, courts typically lean toward the one that aligns with business common sense the interpretation that makes commercial logic in the context of the deal. The UK Supreme Court’s Six-Factor Framework In a landmark clarification, the UK Supreme Court laid out six factors that guide interpretation: 1. Natural and ordinary meaning of the words 2. Other relevant provisions in the contract 3. Overall purpose of the clause and the agreement 4. Facts and circumstances known to both parties at the time 5. Commercial common sense 6. Exclusion of subjective intentions or post-hoc explanations This approach encourages judges to read contracts holistically—not in isolation. Textualism vs Contextualism: Textualism focuses strictly on the words used, assuming they reflect the parties’ intent. Contextualism looks beyond the text to the broader commercial setting, the nature of the deal, and the realities of negotiation. Sophisticated contracts drafted with legal teams and detailed clauses may lend themselves to textual analysis. But in less formal agreements, or where drafting was rushed or uneven, context becomes crucial. The Indian Perspective: Harmonious Reading and Contra Proferentem In Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2021), the Indian Supreme Court reiterated that ambiguous terms must be read in harmony with the rest of the agreement. If ambiguity persists, courts apply the Contra Proferentem Rule—interpreting the clause against the party that drafted it. This principle is especially relevant in standard-form contracts, where one party (often the insurer, employer, or service provider) controls the language. What This Means for You Whether you’re drafting, negotiating, or enforcing a contract, here are a few practical takeaways: Clarity is king: Avoid vague or layered language, especially in critical clauses. Context matters: Courts will consider the commercial backdrop, not just the clause in isolation. Standard-form caution: If you’re using templated contracts, be mindful of how ambiguity may be interpreted against you. Document intent: Where possible, record shared assumptions or deal context in term sheets or preambles. Contract interpretation isn’t just about grammar it’s about fairness, commercial logic, and the realities of doing business. When clarity fails, courts step in with a toolkit designed to uncover what the parties truly meant. The best safeguard? Thoughtful drafting, informed negotiation, and a clear understanding of how the law reads between the lines.
Rethinking Non-Compete Prohibitions in India: A Case for Strategic Reform
Rethinking Non-Compete Prohibitions in India: A Case for Strategic Reform In a country as dynamic and fast-growing as India, the conversation around talent mobility is no longer just a legal debate but a strategic imperative. As startups scale, sectors mature, and global players enter the market, the ability to retain skilled professionals becomes a cornerstone of competitiveness. Yet, Indian law continues to treat post-employment non-compete clauses as void and unenforceable, regardless of context. While this approach is rooted in protecting workers’ rights, it may be time to ask: is a blanket prohibition still serving India’s long-term interests? The Legal Position Today Under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, any agreement that restrains trade is void. This includes non-compete clauses that seek to restrict an employee’s ability to work with a competitor after leaving a job. Indian courts have consistently upheld this interpretation, emphasizing the constitutional right to livelihood and economic freedom. But the reality on the ground is more nuanced. Not all roles are created equal. A junior sales executive and a senior software architect do not carry the same strategic weight when they exit an organization. Yet, the law treats both scenarios identically. Contrast this with the United States, where non-compete clauses are enforceable in most states provided they are reasonable in scope, duration, and geography. The U.S. model isn’t perfect (California, for instance, bans non-competes entirely), but it offers a more calibrated approach. Employers can protect legitimate business interests like trade secrets, client relationships, or proprietary processes without unduly restricting employee mobility. This balance has allowed American companies to invest confidently in talent development, knowing that their most sensitive know-how won’t walk out the door unchecked. It has also encouraged responsible transitions, where employees are expected to honor notice periods or cooling-off clauses before joining a direct competitor. India’s aviation sector recently offered a real-world example of what happens when legal protections fall short. Several foreign carriers, particularly from the Gulf region, have been aggressively recruiting Indian pilots, engineers, and cabin crew often luring them away with higher pay and faster career progression. The result? Indian airlines, after investing heavily in training and certification, are left scrambling to fill critical roles. In a working paper submitted to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), India flagged this as a serious concern, noting that such poaching disrupts operational planning and undermines the country’s aviation ambitions. IndiGo’s CEO, Pieter Elbers, called the trend “disturbing,” pointing out that both public and private players are making long-term bets on fleet expansion and infrastructure. Had enforceable non-compete clauses been in place, say, a six-month restriction on joining a foreign competitor, Indian carriers might have had the breathing room to manage transitions more effectively. Instead, they’re left absorbing the cost of training talent that immediately benefits rival airlines. The pilot poaching episode is not an isolated incident. It’s a symptom of a broader vulnerability in India’s talent ecosystem. As sectors like technology, pharmaceuticals, and financial services become more globally integrated, the stakes of talent retention are only going to rise. Here’s why a rethinking of non-compete enforceability makes sense. Not all industries require the same level of protection. A sector-specific approach could allow enforceability in high-skill, high-investment domains while maintaining flexibility elsewhere. Also, reform doesn’t mean locking employees in. It means enabling fair transitions through notice periods, garden leave, or reasonable cooling-off clauses. As Indian companies compete globally, they need legal tools that match international standards. A reformed non-compete regime would signal maturity and strategic foresight. Furthermore, in sectors where talent is scarce and onboarding is expensive, the ability to retain trained professionals is not just an HR issue but a business advantage. What a Balanced Framework Could Look Like A possible framework could include: Time-bound restrictions (e.g., 6–12 months) Geographic limitations (e.g., within India or specific regions) Compensation during the restricted period Applicability only to senior or sensitive roles Mandatory notice periods for critical positions India’s current legal stance on non-compete clauses was shaped in a different era one where industrial labor and low-skill employment dominated the landscape. Today, we are building a knowledge economy, where intellectual capital is often the most valuable asset a company holds. The law must evolve to reflect this shift. A balanced, sector-sensitive approach to non-compete enforcement could help Indian businesses retain talent, protect investments, and compete more effectively on the global stage without compromising the rights of workers. The question is no longer whether we should protect employees or employers. It’s how we protect both, in a way that supports India’s growth story.