His Lordship’s judgments also reflect his ever-inquisitive mind and his extraordinary ability to learn, unlearn and re-learn with changing times. In 2010, His Lordship sitting at the Madras High Court in Consim Info Pvt Ltd v. Google India Pvt Ltd, dealt with ad-words in relation to trademarks, at a time when the concept of Google ad-words was still at its nascent stage. He set the tone for not just other courts in India, but for courts across the globe to deal with seminal issues arising from Google’s ad-words program. Again, in Rajshree Sugars v. Axis Bank, His Lordship penned the first ever judgment delivered in India on the validity of the contract of derivatives, floated by banks for hedging risks involved for importers and exporters in transactions. In Interaccess Marine Bunkering v. KM Alauddin, the admiralty jurisdiction of the Madras High Court was redefined and the small area of doubt created by or left unanswered by the Supreme Court in Mv Elizabeth on the distinction between maritime claim and maritime lien was clarified.
In Dorothy Thomas v. Rex Arul, His Lordship defined the contours of private international law while dealing with the validity of the decisions rendered by foreign courts on matrimonial disputes. The decision in T Rajkumar v. Union of India, dealing with the constitutional validity of Section 94-A of the Income Tax Act, is a locus classicus on the theories of public international law. In AIDQUA Holdings Inc v. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Co Ltd, which arose out of proceedings for oppression and mismanagement under the Companies Act, 1956, the evil effects of privatisation of water was analysed. After tracing the history of privatisation of water from the 18th century New York, the judgment proceeded to analyse the case study of a water dispute between Bolivia and a company which went for arbitration before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which is a mechanism in the World Bank. Similarly, in 2020, in Internet and Mobile Assn of India v. Reserve Bank of India, His Lordship, writing for a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, opened up the Indian market to cryptocurrency and trading, by quashing a circular of the Reserve Bank of India. Similarly, in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, His Lordship recommended the removal of 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, taking note of the developments in law in relation to electronic evidence.