HC judge recuses from hearing Jet founder Naresh Goyal's plea against LOC

A Delhi High Court judge recused himself on Friday from hearing Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal's plea challenging a look out circular (LOC) issued against him barring him from travelling outside the country.
When the matter came up for hearing before Justice Vibhu Bakhru, he said that "this matter will have to go before another bench" and directed that it be listed before another judge on July 9.

The judge, however, did not give any reasons for recusing from the matter.
According to Goyal's plea, the LOC was issued against him on the request of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) which comes under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).
He has sought quashing of the LOC as well as several office memorandums which lay down the guidelines for issuing the travel ban.
Goyal said he came to know of the LOC on May 25 when he and his wife, Anita, were offloaded from a flight to Dubai with an onward connection to London.
He has contended that no ECIR/FIR has been registered against him and he has not been named as an accused in any case warranting issuance of the LOC.
According to the MCA, the LOC was issued after an inspection by the ministry found large-scale irregularities at Jet Airways, which shuttered operations in April due to acute cash crunch.
Naresh and Anita Goyal had resigned from the board of Jet Airways, which the former founded 26 years ago, in March following a debt restructuring plan.
He had also resigned as the airline's chairman.
Jet Airways is undergoing insolvency proceedings.
Meanwhile, the ministry has also ordered a probe by SFIO into the affairs of Jet Airways.

Delhi High Court dismisses PIL against cap on free withdrawals from ATMs

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL against the cap on free-of-charge withdrawals by banking customers from own bank ATMs, saying it was a policy decision.
A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao on Thursday said the ATM facility provided by banks have lot of overhead costs, like salary of guards and power consumption charges, and therefore, there cannot be unlimited free ATM transactions.

"They have to maintain the ATMs and there would be establishment costs," the court said, adding that it would be "disastrous" if banks close the ATMs due to its interference in the issue.
As per the Reserve Bank of India's new guidelines, bank customers in six metros -- Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Bengaluru -- are allowed to withdraw money free of charge only five times a month from the ATMs of their banks and will be charged Rs 20 for every subsequent transaction.
The court said Rs 20 for every additional transaction in a month can be afforded by a banking customer and dismissed the petition, filed by lawyer Swati Aggarwal, seeking directions to allow unlimited number of free transactions for banking customers at the ATMs of their banks.
In her PIL, Aggarwal claimed that the guidelines were issued at the behest of a few banks and IBA (Indian Banks Association) which had approached the RBI seeking changes in the extant instructions regarding free transactions at other banks' Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs).
It alleged that levying charges was highly "arbitrary and unjustified" besides being "discriminatory and against good banking practices and reforms and a backward move".
"In almost all modern economies of the world, there is no cap on the number of transactions one can make on own bank ATM and unlimited number of transactions remain free of charge on their own bank ATMs," the petition said.
It contended that the RBI decision contradicts its own circular dated March 10, 2008, whereby it had "justified and given directions allowing the free usage of ATMs for unlimited number of transactions on own bank ATMs".

Stressed assets: Govt wants IBC relief for a dozen power projects

The Centre, in its submission to the Allahabad High Court, could seek regulatory relief for a dozen power projects with an overall debt exposure of around Rs 1 trillion out of a total of 34 stressed assets.
Already under resolution plans, these stressed operational power plants include projects of GMR Energy, Essar Power and Rattan India, among others. The government has asked for an additional 180 days to resolve these stressed assets that have a total capacity of 12,000 Mw. A high-level empowered committee constituted by the Ministry of Power would identify the projects.

A committee, constituted by the government under a court directive, has categorised projects as resolved assets, admitted by or referred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), assets under construction and operational plants not yet referred to the NCLT. While NCLT will help resolve the first two categories of cases, assets under construction are not covered under the controversial February 12 notification.
ALSO READ: Power loan provisions by PSBs likely to touch $400 bn in September quarter
Sector concerns are holding back the power projects, which are operational and have not been referred to the NCLT, from realising their potential, the committee has noted in its 124-page report, reviewed by Business Standard. The report would be submitted to the Allahabad court soon.
“It needs to be recognised that power assets, especially operational projects, represent economic value for the nation and consumers. Therefore ‘one size fits all’ approach may not be the most suitable approach considering the varying degrees of complexity of the issues. A nuancing of approach, contingent upon unambiguous and reasonable categorisation may perhaps be warranted,” said the report.
The RBI’s new norms mandated banks to classify even one day’s delay in debt servicing as default. The notification mandates resolution proceedings against stressed accounts to be completed in 180 days.
Stressed power assets: Govt wants IBC relief for a dozen projects
Following a petition filed last month by Independent Power Producers Association of India (IPPAI) in the Allahabad High Court against the February 12 notification of the RBI, the court had directed the finance ministry to hold a meeting with the stakeholders in the sector and work out a possible solution within a month.
Thereafter, the finance ministry held a meeting with stakeholders, along with officials of the ministries of coal and power and a RBI representative on June 21.
During the meeting, the ministry of power pointed out that the situation in the sector was unique. According to the ministry of power, while the electricity demand was growing at a pace slower than capacity addition, it was a temporary phenomenon and that the trend was "likely to correct very soon due to various initiatives of the government and steady growth of the economy’’.
The RBI, however, dismissed the argument saying the problem of power sector would take a long time to resolve. “The financial sector cannot ignore the stress on its books, in the interim. The mindset of acting only when there is prolonged default in payment has been one of the contributors to the deterioration in banks’ asset quality,” according to RBI.
ALSO READ: Power Ministry and private units in a bind over coal supply shortage
The power ministry said higher than required capacity addition without tying up power purchase agreements with distribution companies along with issues such as coal supply and discom dues to generators have prevented some coal-based power plants from servicing their debt. In some cases, promoters were unable to infuse equity, resulting in tardy implementation of projects.
The power ministry has requested the RBI to increase the resolution period “considering that there are not too many buyers in the market given that all the stressed assets are approaching the market for restructuring/change in management.”
The RBI has taken a tough stance against the special dispensation to the power industry, pointing out that it would invite similar representations from other sectors and lead to litigation. According to the report, the banking regulator was of the view that the solution does not lie in “trying to mask the problem or compromising risk recognition and prudence”. While observing that it cannot ignore the “ground realities”, the RBI said, “Discussions with bankers indicate that six months is adequate time to restructure — bankers are familiar with the individual nuances of these exposures and have already restructured many of these in the past.”
The power ministry has suggested two schemes for resolution of stress in the sector — SAMADHAN from State Bank of India and Power Finance Corporation (PFC), two institutions with the highest exposure to the power sector, PARIWARTAN from Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) which has suggested setting up an ‘Asset Restructuring Company (ARC)’. SAMADHAN is about identifying ten assets and taking over ‘sustainable debt’ and then selling the asset to some ARC.
The RBI said that it was open to the REC’s idea of creating an asset restructuring company to take over the stressed power assets of banks. “The proposal should be premised on a ‘level playing field’ agnostic of public or private ownership, and based on transparent price discovery.” According to RBI, its regulations do not deter banks from lending to loss-making discoms for working capital, and rather ensure that lending against cash losses is classified “adversely and provided for”.

Rapping the watchdog: Delhi HC order questions Sebi's penalty proceedings

A recent ruling by the Delhi High Court (HC), questioning the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (Sebi’s) adjudication proceedings, could have implications for thousands of cases pending before the market regulator.
The case pertains to a show cause notice issued by Sebi to Amit Jain (petitioner), who held over five per cent stake in a listed-company Himalaya Granites, but failed to make disclosures under the Prohibition of Insider Trading (PIT) norms.
The petitioner contested the move on the ground that the Sebi board didn’t follow the prescribed procedure.
According to him, the group of assistant managers of Sebi recommended proceedings against the entities without taking whole-time member’s opinion and therefore, the appointment of adjudicating officer was without jurisdiction. Further, the penalty was imposed without a prior order under the PIT regulation.
Considering the merit of the case, the high court set aside Sebi’s impugned order and asked the Sebi board or a whole-time member to examine the case as per the laws and accordingly pass a fresh order.
The court is of the view that a whole-time member (WTM) has not formed “independent opinion’ on whether there are grounds for adjudication in the said matter.
Citing the Sebi (Procedure for Holding Enquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, the high court said that it is apparent that formation of an opinion by the board is a pre-condition for the appointment of the adjudicating officer. “It follows that in absence of such an opinion, an adjudicating officer (AO) cannot be appointed and any such appointment will be without jurisdiction,” order reads.
Typically, a whole-time member independently takes a call whether the case is fit for the adjudication, irrespective of the suggestion expressed by his juniors.
If the board/member is of opinion that there are grounds for the adjudging, then accordingly it appoints an AO to hold an inquiry.
“There was no scope for inferring formation of such opinion merely for reason that an AO has been appointed and other officers have forwarded their recommendations for such an action,” the high court noted.
Sebi counsel said that adjudication was initiated after the member was prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to inquire into the matter and adjudicated upon the alleged violations.
“This judgement rightly brings focus to the procedural aspects of law. The prescribed procedures ensure that authorities exercise their statutory powers carefully and consciously after satisfying themselves that the necessary conditions allowing exercise of powers have been met,” said a Mumbai-based advocate Deepak Sanchety.
To clear the backlog of pending cases, Sebi is in the fast track mode of passing adjudicating orders.
Rapping the watchdog
- HC sets aside Sebi order in the Himalaya Granite matter - Directs Sebi board to examine the case if required and pass fresh order - Observes that adjudicating proceeding was not followed under prescribed norms - WTM has not formed an independent opinion required to adjudging the matter - Sebi issues show cause notice to Amit Jain & others for violating insider trading norms

Naroda Patiya case: Togadia, BJP welcome Maya Kodnani's acquittal; updates

The Gujarat High Court on Friday acquitted former BJP minister Maya Kodnani but upheld the conviction of former Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riot case in which 97 people were killed by a mob. The high court upheld conviction of 13 people including Bajrangi, and convicted another three for the first time, while acquitting 18 of the 32 people convicted by the trial court in 2012.
In 2002, Kodnani was a BJP MLA and the trial court had said she was the "kingpin" of the Naroda Patiya killings, one of the worst incidents of violence during the Gujarat riots, and sentenced her to 28 years in jail. Kodnani went on to become a minister in then Narendra Modi government in Gujarat in 2007, before resigning when she was arrested in the case in March 2009.
Acquitting her, the high court said the statements made by witnesses regarding her role were contradictory. No prosecution witness mentioned that she talked to them at the relevant time, the high court noted. The high court said it finds it "hazardous" to rely on contradictory statements of witnesses, and therefore, no testimony of witnesses regarding Kodnani was accepted. The trial court had convicted her for a criminal conspiracy under section 120 (B) of the IPC, but the evidence didn't establish the charge, the high court said. Kodnani was also given the benefit of doubt as she was made an accused for the first time in 2008 by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), while her name did not figure in the original FIR, the high court said.
Around 58 people lost their lives when the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express was allegedly torched at the Godhra Railway Station on February 27, 2002. Following the incident, on February 28, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal had declared a Gujarat Bandh. A total of 97 people were killed by rioters in Ahmedabad's Naroda Patiya area on this day.
Here are the top ten developments around the Gujarat High Court's 2002 Naroda Patiya riot case verdict given today:
1) BJP, Togadia welcome Naroda verdict: Former VHP leader Pravin Togadia said he was delighted, and the state must not challenge the acquittals. The firebrand Hindutva leader said the state government should not challenge the acquittal of Kodnani and others in the Supreme Court. "Hindu Advocate Forum" will provide legal help to Bajrangi and others, he said. "I express delight that Maya-ben and others have been acquitted. I would also demand that the government should not go to the Supreme Court to challenge the acquittals. Bajrangi and others who have been convicted should move the SC and we will arrange free legal aid for them. I would also ask the Gujarat government to go easy on their appeals," he said.

If acquitted ones are innocent, did we kill our children, asks 2002 Naroda Patiya riot victim: "Eight members of our family were killed before our eyes. If they are innocent, did we kill our children? Maya Kodnani has been declared innocent, two years later Babu Bajrangi will be acquitted," the victim told media.
The Gujarat High Court acquitted former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) minister Maya Kodnani in the case.
2) Did we kill our children, asks 2002 Naroda Patiya riot victim: "Eight members of our family were killed before our eyes. If they are innocent, did we kill our children? Maya Kodnani has been declared innocent, two years later Babu Bajrangi will be acquitted," the victim told media.
The Gujarat High Court acquitted former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) minister Maya Kodnani in the case.
ALSO READ: If acquitted ones are innocent, did we kill our children, asks 2002 Naroda Patiya riot victim
3) Maya Kodnani acquitted in 2002 Naroda Patiya riot case: The Gujarat High Court acquitted former BJP minister Maya Kodnani in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riot case, in which 97 Muslims were killed following the Godhra riots. Kodnani had been sentenced to 28 years of imprisonment.
Kodnani had been currently out on bail. In 2012, the trial court had held that she was the mastermind of the violence in Naroda area.
4) Babu Bajrangi's sentence upheld: Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi's sentence in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riot case was upheld by the Gujarat High Court. Bajrangi had also moved the court challenging the previous ruling. He had been sentenced to life imprisonment until death.
ALSO READ: 2002 Naroda Patiya riot case: Gujarat HC acquits Maya Kodnani
5) Gujarat High Court acquits 17 out of 32 accused in 2002 Naroda Patiya riot case: Out of the 32 convicts in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riot case, the Gujarat High court on Friday acquitted 17 people, including Maya Kodnani, reported news agency ANI. The convictions of 12 were upheld by the court, including for Babu Bajrangi, the agency added. The verdict for two others was awaited at the time of reporting. One of the accused is dead.
ANI
✔
@ANI
Replying to @ANI
2002 Gujarat riots case (Naroda Patiya): Out of the 32 convicts in the case, Gujarat High court acquitted 17 people including Maya Kodnani; conviction of 12 was upheld, verdict on 2 others awaited, 1 accused is dead.
12:29 PM - Apr 20, 2018
95
56 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
6) 'Contradictory statements about Maya Kodnani's presence at Naroda Gam': The special public prosecutor in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riot case, Prashant Desai, told news agencies that all 12 convicts have been awarded 21 years of imprisonment without remission. He added that 11 witnesses gave different statements on Maya Kodnani's presence at the Naroda Gam location and that there were contradictions.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
ANI
✔
@ANI
All 12 convicts have been awarded 21 years of imprisonment without remission. 11 witnesses gave different statements on Maya Kodnani's presence at the location but there were contradictions: Prashant Desai, Special Public Prosecutor on 2002 #NarodaPatiyaCase
12:57 PM - Apr 20, 2018
71
32 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
SIT(Special Investigation Team) Public prosecutor Prashant Desai interacts with the media after the Verdict on Naroda Patiya massacare case outside the Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad SIT(Special Investigation Team) Public prosecutor Prashant Desai interacts with the media after the Verdict on Naroda Patiya massacare case outside the Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad. Photo: PTI
7) Bench of Justices Harsha Devani and A S Supehiya gives verdict: A Division Bench of Justices Harsha Devani and A S Supehiya pronounced the verdict. In August 2012, a special court for SIT cases had sentenced 32 people, including Kodnani, to life imprisonment.
ALSO READ: Naroda Gam: Defence says call records destroyed as part of conspiracy
8) Last year, Amit Shah had told the court Maya Kodnani wasn't in Naroda Gam: In September last year, BJP president Amit Shah had appeared before a special SIT court in Ahmedabad as a defence witness for Kodnani in the 2002 Naroda Gam riot case. Shah's deposition started before Judge P B Desai who had summoned him in response to an application filed by Kodnani. According to news agency ANI, Amit Shah had said, "Maya Kodnani was not present in Naroda Gam and that she was inside the state Assembly at 8.30 am." He had added that from 9:30 am to 9:45 am, he was at the Civil Hospital and he met Maya Kodnani there. The court had allowed Kodnani's plea to summon Shah and some others as witnesses in her defence in April last year.

Jignesh Mevani
✔
@jigneshmevani80
This Week in Fascism:
- Court acquits Aseemanand, there is no "Saffron Terror", & he may now campaign for BJP.
- No one killed #JudgeLoya.Jo @AmitShah par sawaal uthaate hai, apne aap hi magically marr jaate hai.
- #MayaKodnani acquitted. No one killed 97 people in Naroda Patiya.
2:14 PM - Apr 20, 2018
2,200
1,198 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
ALSO READ: Naroda Gam case: Ex-cop Sharma seeks dismissal of arraignment plea
9) Kodnani claims she was at Sola Civil Hospital at the time of the riot: Kodnani had said that on the day of the Naroda Gam riot near Ahmedabad, she had visited the Sola Civil Hospital after attending the Legislative Assembly and was not present at the spot where the violence took place. Amit Shah, then an MLA, was also present at Sola Civil Hospital where bodies of the karsevaks killed in the Sabarmati Train burning incident were brought from Godhra. Shah's testimony was meant to help prove her 'alibi' that she was present elsewhere when the crime took place, she had said. Kodnani, who was an MLA in 2002, was made a junior minister in Chief Minister Narendra Modi's government in 2007.
ALSO READ: Naroda Gam riot case: Court issues notice to ex-IPS officer
10) Here is a brief chronology of the 2002 Naroda Patiya riot case: In August 2012, a special court for SIT cases had sentenced 32 people, including former BJP minister Maya Kodnani, to life imprisonment. Kodnani was sentenced to 28 years of imprisonment. The other high-profile accused, former Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi, was given life imprisonment until death.
While seven accused had been given enhanced life imprisonment of 21 years, which they were to serve after undergoing 10 years' imprisonment under IPC section 326 (causing grievous hurt), the remaining accused had been given simple life imprisonment (14 years). The trial court had also acquitted 29 others accused for lack of evidence. While the convicts had challenged the lower court's order in the high court, the SIT appealed against the acquittal of 29 people.
During the course of the hearing, the high court judges had visited the site of the incident in Naroda Patiya area in Ahmedabad -- where 97 people from the Muslim community had been killed -- to understand its topography.
ALSO READ: Judge hearing 2002 Naroda Gam riots case retires
High Court judges had recused themselves for the case: A number of high court judges, including justices Akil Kureshi, M R Shah, K S Jhaveri, G B Shah, Sonia Gokani, and R H Shukla, had recused themselves from the case during the hearing on appeals.
Naroda Patiya riot left 97 dead: The Naroda Patiya riot was one of the worst incidents that followed the Godhra train burning incident of February 27, 2002, in which 59 kar sevaks were killed. Around 58 people lost their lives when the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express was allegedly torched at the Godhra Railway Station on February 27, 2002. Following the incident, on February 28, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal had declared a Gujarat Bandh. A total of 97 people were killed by rioters in Ahmedabad's Naroda Patiya area on this day.
Naroda Gam was one of the nine major 2002 communal riot cases that was investigated by the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team.

SC judges air differences with CJI Misra: Controversy not new to judiciary

The arrest of former Calcutta High Court Chief justice C S Karnan for contempt of court, for instance, had grabbed headlines in recent times as he became the first Indian judge to be sent to jail in India. Another case of a direct attack on Chief Justice himself came way back in 2009 when Karnataka High Court judge D V Shylendra Kumar fired a salvo at the then Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan for not making his assets public stating that “he is more like a serpent without fangs, who can only hiss, but not bite”.
However, Friday’s protest in public by the four senior most judges Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Bhimrao Lokur and Kurian Joseph is the first instance in which a group of judges are raising allegation against Chief Justice. Currently, there are 25 sitting judges and seven out of the full strength of 31 are retiring this year. Chelameswar is set to retire in June. Justices Lokur and Joseph will retire in December.
Earlier, there were reports alleging Misra had intervened to ensure only judges of his choice heard a sensitive case about corruption involving a retired high court judge. But, Karnan’s case was the most controversial so far. In January 2017, Karnan wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi flagging the names of 20 judges alleging corruption. Even though he failed to provide any evidence, he urged the government to investigate the matter. After a series of allegations in public, including an unprecedented order by him sentencing India’s chief justice, and seven other judges of the Supreme Court, to five years in prison, the top court even barred the media from publishing Karnan’s statements.
Later, he was arrested in June 2017.
Also, Chelameswar had a clash in November last over assignment of a sensitive case. Two petitions seeking a special investigation team (SIT) to look into allegations contained in a first information report (FIR) filed by the CBI were listed before two different benches. While one bench referred the petition before it to the Chief Justice for setting up an “ appropriate” bench, the bench presided over by Chelameswar directed the petition before it to be heard by a five-judge bench of senior judges. Within hours, Chief Justice Dipak Misra rose from the constitution bench he was presiding over and set up a five-judge bench which annulled the Chelameswar order. Misra asserted that it was the prerogative of the Chief Justice to set up a constitution bench and he can pick the judges to fill it. The order was passed in the jam-packed court room of the Chief Justice amid shouting matches by the men in black.
Old timers remember an instance of the 1980s’ in which one judge stormed out of the court while hearing a case because his senior colleague was dominating the court and the junior was not given any say. While walking out, Justice E S Venkataramiah, who later became the chief justice, uttered unkind words about his senior, embarrassing the bar and making front page headlines. Later he called the media and explained that he was not against the senior but only wanted brother judges to be heard.
However, controversies over comments by judges are not new. For instance, then chief justice R M Lodha had gone all out in 2013 against the government observing that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is like a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice”.
And then, Justice Markandey Katju had said “hang the corrupt to the lamp posts” while hearing a bail plea connected to fodder scam. Another recent comment by a judge that raised eyebrows was by Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma of Rajasthan High Court, stating that cow should be declared the national animal.