Shyamal Mukherjee, the former Chairman of global accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) India, has escalated a legal dispute over retirement benefits to the Supreme Court. His petition, filed on May 16, 2025, challenges arbitration and High Court decisions that he claims unjustly favored the firm. The Supreme Court is yet to assign the case to a bench.
Mukherjee alleges that PwC failed to honour the retirement terms previously agreed upon and has withheld key documents, including a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) agreement that would outline the terms of his settlement. This omission, he contends, prevented him from fully understanding or negotiating the benefits he was entitled to receive upon his departure.
ALSO READ: FCRF Launches Campus Ambassador Program to Empower India’s Next-Gen Cyber Defenders
Legal Tug-of-War: From Arbitration to Apex Court
The conflict began in 2024 when Mukherjee approached the Bombay High Court, seeking arbitration in accordance with the firm’s partnership framework. However, due to a clause mandating jurisdiction in Karnataka, the matter also found its way to the Karnataka High Court. Despite the jurisdictional complexity, the Bombay High Court proceeded to appoint former Justice MS Sanklecha as the sole arbitrator.
The arbitration proceedings ultimately ruled in favour of PwC India, leading Mukherjee to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) with the Supreme Court. His core grievance remains the alleged non-transparency of PwC in sharing the terms of the LLP agreement, which forms the crux of the retirement benefits arrangement.
PwC Yet to Respond; Legal Precedent at Stake
PwC India has not publicly commented on the case or its specifics. However, legal experts suggest that the outcome of this case could set an important precedent regarding arbitration clauses in high-stakes corporate contracts, particularly in firms with LLP structures.
Mukherjee’s case highlights the growing legal scrutiny of exit packages, transparency obligations, and partnership governance in large consulting and professional services firms. As the Supreme Court prepares to examine the petition, the case is likely to draw attention from both the legal and corporate sectors.
The ruling, once issued, could redefine how arbitration awards are evaluated when questions of incomplete disclosure or procedural imbalance arise—especially in cases involving top-tier corporate executives.
