He has represented key government bodies, including the Delhi Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in litigation before the Delhi High Court. His practice also includes advising startups on legal and regulatory matters and conducting property due diligence for a leading multiplex brand.
What inspired you to specialize in dispute resolution, and how has your approach evolved over the years?
Paritosh: When I started my journey in law, I interned in both corporate law firms and litigation offices because initially, I dreamed of living the life portrayed by Harvey Specter from the show “Suits.” But soon enough, I realized real-life practice is very different. I still thought corporate law would be my path, and I even interned at a top-tier law firm. However, one day the senior partner handling corporate law called me for a long discussion. We spoke for almost three hours. He explained in detail the realities, challenges, and opportunities in litigation and advised me to choose it thoughtfully. By the time I stepped out, I had made up my mind—litigation was going to be my focus. He even told me if things didn’t work out, or if I ever changed my mind, I should come back and see him in five years. It’s been six years now, and I’m very happy with my decision. Over the years, my approach has become more practical and my love for my profession has evolved—I focus on learning more each day of the day, I try to listen to people arguing or talking about law in every opportunity that I get. It’s important to clearly understand what the clients really want, and advising them honestly about risks rather than pushing them into unnecessary litigation.
Do you think litigation for government bodies presents unique challenges compared to private clients?
Paritosh: Definitely. Representing government bodies is extremely challenging because every single step you take has to be approved by multiple levels within the government. The instructions often come slowly, and there’s always a chance of missing important court deadlines because of this slow approval process. I’ve had the privilege of handling litigation for government bodies for over three years, managing around 10-12 cases every day. It was incredibly tedious and involved a lot of running around, chasing approvals, and waiting for instructions. Despite these challenges, the experience was valuable—it taught me patience, thoroughness, and how to manage complex procedural hurdles.
Why do you believe competition law enforcement in India still faces challenges despite increasing regulations?
Paritosh: India’s competition law is still evolving, and many aspects of it are currently being tested and challenged in courts. Even though the law has become stricter, businesses are still adapting, and there is ongoing confusion and resistance regarding compliance. There are a lot of writ petitions pending where the laws and the rules of the competition law domain have been challenged. Moreover, authorities themselves are still figuring out the practicalities of enforcing these rules consistently. Due to these factors, effective enforcement faces significant hurdles, despite stronger regulations on paper.
What are the biggest gaps in India’s intellectual property laws that startups should be aware of?
Paritosh: The biggest issue that startups should know about is the slow and inefficient system for registering intellectual property rights, particularly trademarks. The IP registry lacks adequate manpower and resources, causing long delays in processing applications. It can take several years to get a trademark registered. For startups, waiting that long means they’re operating with less protection and more risk of someone copying their brand or idea. This slows down their growth and exposes them to costly litigations. Awareness of IP has improved significantly, but infrastructure and efficiency at the registry level still lag far behind. If India wants its startups to grow, they need to have IP department improvement as one of the key steps.
Whether the recent real estate regulatory reforms have truly protected buyers or merely added procedural hurdles is debatable—what is your perspective?
Paritosh: In my view, the recent real estate reforms, especially through RERA, have genuinely helped homebuyers by introducing transparency, accountability, and clarity around project timelines. Buyers today have more information and greater protection than before. However, the process has also become more complicated. Builders must now comply with additional requirements, paperwork, and regulatory checks, which sometimes delay projects further. Although these reforms have improved buyers’ confidence, there’s still scope to streamline procedures and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy to fully realize the intended benefits.
When advising startups, what are the most overlooked legal risks that can cause long-term issues?
Paritosh: One of the most common and dangerous oversights is not investing early in proper legal advice. Many startups skip hiring a dedicated legal team or at least consulting a qualified lawyer early on. They often neglect crucial areas like clearly written employment agreements, company policies, and intellectual property protection. Instead, startups often download agreement templates from the internet without customization or careful thought. This approach may save money initially but leads to expensive and stressful legal disputes later. Startups must treat legal expenses as investments—spending a few thousand rupees at the start can save lakhs later on, not to mention the peace of mind that legal complications and litigation takes away from the company founders.
What are the key legal loopholes in real estate transactions that investors and buyers must watch out for?
Paritosh: Buyers and investors often overlook serious issues like unclear property titles, hidden encumbrances (like unpaid loans or legal disputes), and missing project approvals. Developers might promise certain facilities or timelines verbally, without clearly stating these commitments in the contracts. This leads to disputes or losses later. Another common loophole is deliberately vague or misleading clauses related to additional charges or maintenance costs. Investors and buyers must carefully review every document, verify property titles, insist on clear, detailed, and written commitments from developers, and always do thorough legal due diligence before finalizing any transaction.
Why do you think contract law in India needs to evolve faster to match digital transactions and e-commerce trends?
Paritosh: Absolutely, India’s contract laws need urgent modernization. Digital signatures and Aadhaar-based OTP signatures must be widely accepted and recognized by courts and authorities. Currently, despite being legal, they are not always fully trusted or widely used, creating hurdles for digital businesses. Indian contract law was primarily designed for traditional, physical transactions, and it struggles to adequately cover modern online business transactions and digital agreements. Updating contract laws quickly to embrace digital transactions clearly and explicitly would help businesses operate confidently in a rapidly digitizing economy.
Whether the backlog in India’s criminal justice system can be solved through legal reforms or requires administrative changes is debated—what do you believe would be a step in the right direction?
Paritosh: The most immediate and impactful step would be appointing more judges. Currently, the biggest reason for the huge backlog in India’s criminal courts is simply the shortage of judges. Judges are overloaded and overworked, and cases pile up faster than they can be resolved. India has plenty of qualified judiciary aspirants, yet appointments move slowly. Additionally, better training for judges in drafting detailed, clear judgments would help reduce unnecessary appeals, further speeding up justice. More judges, better resources, and focused training will together significantly reduce backlogs and improve the efficiency of our criminal justice system.
When is the right time for a startup to invest in legal compliance, and what are the risks of delaying it?
Paritosh: Startups should prioritize legal compliance even before officially launching their operations. Treating legal expenses as just another investment in the business is critical. Unfortunately, many founders delay legal compliance to save a little money upfront, but this always costs more in the long run. I’ve advised several startups that initially ignored legal compliance, and now they’re caught in costly disputes that threaten their businesses. It’s always easier and cheaper to avoid legal problems than to fix them after they occur. So, investing early in legal compliance ensures smooth operations, builds trust with investors, and significantly reduces future risks and expenses.
