LIVE: SC dismisses UPSC Prelims 2020 postponement plea; exam on October 4

 The Supreme Court of India dismissed UPSC Prelims 2020 postponement plea. At the same time, the apex court directed the Centre to consider concessions for those aspirants who are on their last attempt. SC had earlier asked UPSC to file a reply as to why the examination cannot be postponed. Meanwhile, coronavirus patients will not be allowed to appear for the prelims, ruled SC.

The family of the 19-year-old Dalit woman, who died in a Delhi hospital a fortnight after she was gang-raped here, alleged on Wednesday that the UP police forcibly cremated the body in the middle of the night.

 

A special court in Lucknow will deliver the much-awaited judgment today in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case in which BJP veterans L K Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi are among the accused.

 

The Congress will today hold internal discussions on the seat-sharing arrangements with like-minded parties for the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections.

 

Stay tuned for the latest news of the day.

CATCH ALL THE LIVE UPDATES

Auto Refresh

03:19 PM 

India posts current account surplus of $19.8 bn as trade deficit narrows

India’s current account balance (CAB) recorded a surplus of $19.8 billion (3.9 per cent of GDP) in Q1 of 2020-21. This contrasts with a deficit of $ 15 billion (2.1 per cent of GDP) in April-June 2019 (Q1Fy20).

 

The surplus in April-June 2020 (Q1Fy21) comes on top of a surplus of $0.6 billion (0.1 per cent of GDP) in the preceding quarter (Q4 Fy20), said the Reserve Bank of India in a statement. The surplus was due to a sharp contraction in the trade deficit to $10 billion, as the country’s merchandise imports declined sharply relative to exports on a year-on-year basis. Read more

03:03 PM 

Hathras rape case: Congress demands UP CM's resignation

The Congress Wednesday slammed the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh over the Hathras gang-rape victim's family being allegedly denied the right to properly perform her last rites, demanding Prime Minister Narendra Modi ask for Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's resignation.

"The way she was cremated is a gross violation of her human rights, a Congress spokesperson said in Delhi.

The 19-year-old Dalit woman, who died in a Delhi hospital a fortnight after she was gang-raped in Uttar Pradesh's Hathras, was cremated in the early hours of Wednesday, with her family alleging the local police forced them to conduct the last rites in the dead of the night.

 

02:47 PM 

NTPC eyes Rs 98,000 cr revenue in FY21

NTPC is eyeing Rs 98,000 crore revenue from operations and about 15 million metric tonne of coal output from its mines in the current fiscal year.

The state-owned power giant is also aiming 340 BU (billion units) of electricity generation in 2020-21 as part of its Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Ministry of Power, a company statement said.

As per the MoU, NTPC will aim to achieve capital expenditure of Rs 21,000 crore and coal production of 15 million metric tonne in the current fiscal year.

 

02:38 PM 

BrahMos supersonic cruise missile test-fired off Odisha coast

02:23 PM 

Govt extends BPCL bid deadline to Nov 16

The government has for the fourth time extended the deadline for bidding for privatisation of India's second-biggest oil refiner Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd (BPCL) by one and a half months to November 16.

While the Cabinet, in November last year, had approved the sale of the government's entire 52.98 per cent stake in BPCL, offers seeking expression of interest (EoI) or bids showing interest in buying its stake were invited only on March 7.

Initially, the EoI submission deadline was May 2, but it was first was extended up to June 13, then to July 31 and later to September 30.

 

02:05 PM 

Jai Shri Ram: Advani on being acquitted from Babri demolition case

Veteran BJP leader LK Advani, who was acquitted by a special CBI court on Wednesday in the Babri mosque demolition case, welcomed the court verdict by chanting 'Jai Shri Ram', and said it came in "footsteps of another order which paved the way for my dream of seeing a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya".

 

Advani, who was the face of the Ram Janambhoomi Movement in 1992, was acquitted along with all other 31 accused in the case.

 

"It is a very important decision and a matter of happiness for us. When we heard the news of the court's order, we welcomed it by chanting Jai Shri Ram, Advani said in a video message.

02:00 PM 

Govt extends FY19 GST annual return filing deadline by 1 month

The government has extended the deadline for filing GST annual return and audit report for 2018-19 fiscal year by a month till October 31.

 

After obtaining due clearances from the Election Commission in view of the Model Code of Conduct, Government has extended due date for furnishing Annual Return in GSTR-9 and GSTR 9C for 2018-19 from 30.09.2020 to 31.10.2020, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) tweeted.

 

In May, the government had extended thelast date for filing annual GST return for 2018-19 by three months till September 2020.

 

GSTR-9 is an annual return to be filed by taxpayers registered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. It consists of details regarding the outward and inward supplies made or received under different tax heads.

01:51 PM 

Amazon creates over 100,000 jobs ahead of festive season

Amazon India on Wednesday said that it has created more than 1 lakh seasonal job opportunities across its operations network in the country ahead of the festive season.

The new associates will join Amazon's existing network of associates and support them to pick, pack, ship and deliver customers' orders safely and efficiently, the company said in a statement.

"The new seasonal positions will help elevate its delivery experience and boost the company's fulfilment and delivery capabilities to meet the surge in customer demand this festive season," it said.

 

01:12 PM 

UPSC Prelims 2020: Summary of SC directions

1. No postponement of UPSC Prelims 2020

2. UPSC asked to consider granting an extra attempt to candidates who miss the exam due to coronavirus but without extending the upper age limit.

01:06 PM 

Supreme Court dismisses the plea seeking for postponement of the UPSC examination

SC extends relief on NPAs after govt tells interest issue being looked into

 The Supreme Court Thursday extended its interim order that no account is to be declared NPA till further orders after the Centre said an expert panel has been set up to look into the issue of interest being charged by banks on instalments deferred during the moratorium period due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The top court granted two weeks to the Centre and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to file the affidavit and place before it the decisions taken in this regard.

A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah posted the matter for further hearing on September 28 and said that the court expects that the government and RBI actively consider all the issues.

The bench clarified that it was giving one last opportunity and thereafter the matter will not be adjourned.

The top court was hearing a batch of pleas which have raised the issue of interest being charged on instalments which were deferred during the moratorium period due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre said that the government at the highest level is considering all issues raised in the batch of petitions and within two weeks, appropriate decision will be taken with regard to the problems faced by different sectors during the pandemic.

He said that everything has to be considered holistically and the government is considering all the sectors for which an expert panel has been constituted.

The bench told Mehta that concrete decisions should be taken with clarity so that the matter does not get adjourned again.

Mehta said that with regard to concerns expressed by the petitioners in last hearing, two to three rounds of meeting have taken place and issues are being examined.

He sought deferment of the hearing by two weeks saying that considered decisions have to be taken in consultation with all stakeholders including banks which play a vital role in the issues at hand.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for banks' association said that norms and guidelines have to be issued with regard to individual borrowers.

The bench asked who will formulate these norms to which Salve replied that the Ministry of Finance will do as it has been done at the level of RBI.

Mehta said that it is being done at a level higher than the RBI and whatever will be there it would be comprehensive.

Salve pointed out that for the power sector, the states will have to be taken on board as entire loans cannot be put on banks.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for CREDAI said that current restructuring of loans won't provide relief to 95 per cent of borrowers and pointed that downgrading of borrowers is continuing which must be protected.

He sought extension of loan moratorium, stay on downgrading and interest of levy.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dutta, appearing for borrowers said that banks are charging compound interest while now the loans are being restructured which should be done earlier.

Contending that the government should make its stand clear on charging of interest on interest by banks, he said that lakhs of people are in hospitals and many have lost their sources of income.

Senior advocate V Giri, appearing for RBI said that downgrading is being done on an individual basis and as per existing norms. He sought deferment of hearing by two weeks saying all issues are under active consideration at the highest level.

Salve told the court that now the matter has become adversarial and urged the court to implead banks association in all the petitions on the issue.

The bench said that it was not the question of adversarial as with respect to interest it is yet to take a decision but with regard to charging of interest on interest by banks the court is inclined to pass orders.

Salve pointed that the entire banking structure works on compound interest and that is what is being currently done.

The bench then told Mehta that it was adjourning the matter but everything including the issues raised in the hearing should be considered.

On September 3, in a relief to stressed borrowers who are facing hardship due to impact of COVID-19 pandemic, the top court had said that accounts which were not declared as non-performing assets till August 31 this year, shall not be declared NPA till further orders.

The pleas filed in the apex court have raised issue pertaining to validity of March 27 circular of the RBI which allowed lending institutions to grant moratorium on payment of instalments of term loans falling due between March 1, 2020 and May 31 this year due to the pandemic. Later, the period of moratorium was extended till August 31.

The Centre had recently told the apex court that waiver of interest on deferred EMIs during the moratorium period would be against the basic canons of finance and unfair to those who repaid loans as per schedule.

RBI has however come out with a scheme which provides for extension of moratorium for two years to certain stressed borrowers, the Centre had informed the top court.

Borrowers and various bodies representing different sectors had earlier assailed before the apex court the charging of "penal' interest on deferred EMI payments by banks under the moratorium scheme during the pandemic.

Sunil Mittal, Birla meet FM as AGR crisis looms over telecom sector

With the SupremeCourt-mandated liability pushing telecom companies to the brink, industry honchos Sunil Bharti Mittal and Kumar Mangalam Birla on Wednesday met Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman as their firms scrambled to meet payment deadlines.
While the two refused to comment on discussions they had with Sitharaman, Mittal said the telecom sector has been under stress for the last three-and-a-half years and the government should focus on its sustainability.

Mittal, who heads mobile service major Bharti Airtel, first met Telecom Secretary Anshu Prakash before going for the meeting with the finance minister.
Birla, who is the chairman of Vodafone Idea Ltd, had met the telecom secretary on Tuesday.
It was not immediately clear if the two telecom tycoons met Sitharaman together or separately.
Emerging out of the North Block after meeting Sitharaman, Mittal told reporters that the issue of pending dues arising out of the Supreme Court ruling on Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) was not discussed.
The telecom industry, he said, is vital to India's digital agenda.
"This industry is very vital to the nation's digital agenda, and many other industries that ride on it....employment, government taxes...the only thing government needs to focus on is how to ensure sustainiability of the sector," Mittal said.
Mittal -- whose company Bharti Airtel is confronted with over Rs 35,000 crore of statutory dues -- did not elaborate on the relief mechanism that the telco is pitching for. The industry as such has been batting for reduction in levies like licence fee and spectrum charges.
Mittal said Airtel has already announced its plans to pay the dues that arose from the apex court ruling. The company is calculating its liability, he added.
Airtel has so far paid Rs 10,000 crore out of its estimated liability of over Rs 35,000 crore.
"We have made statement that we are working on the calculation so as soon as it is ready...," he said.
Vodafone Idea Chairman Kumar Mangalam Birla refused to comment on whether the company has approached the government for relief on the timelines for the statutory payment, and whether he has received any assurances in return.
Asked about the mounting stress in the telecom sector, Birla said, "That is in the public domain...there is no other insight I can add." On whether it is a do-or-die moment for telecom companies like Vodafone Idea, Birla said, "Let us see." Vodafone Idea on Monday paid Rs 2,500 crore to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and promised to pay another Rs 1,000 crore before the end of the week.
But the amount paid for now is less than 5 per cent of the dues that the DoT estimates the company owes to the government following the Supreme Court ruling that asked for including non-core revenues of telcos in computing statutory payments such as licence fee and spectrum charges.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stop the telecom department from taking any coercive steps for recovery of dues from Vodafone Idea.
In December, Birla had said Vodafone Idea may have to shut down if there is no relief on statutory dues. "If we are not getting anything, then I think it is the end of the story for Vodafone Idea," Birla had said. "It does not make sense to put good money after bad... We will shut shop." After a Supreme Court rap on February 14 for missing the payment deadline, top telecom firms Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea and Tata Teleservices earlier this week scrambled to pay a part of their outstanding dues.
Airtel -- which recently raised USD 3 billion -- has paid Rs 10,000 crore to the government, and said it will clear the remaining dues before the next date of hearing on March 17. Vodafone Idea, however, has so far not provided a clear deadline for making balance payments.
Tata Teleservices paid Rs 2,197 crore, the entire outstanding it believes to have arisen after the October ruling of the apex court for calculating dues after adding non-telecom revenues. It has also submitted to DoT the details of calculations in support of the payment.
The DoT -- which last week drew flak for ordering no coercive action even after telcos missed the January 23 payment deadline set by the Supreme Court -- had been mulling the option of encashing bank guarantees given by firms when they got telecom licences, as none of the telcos paid the full amount. The telecom department would seek opinion from the law ministry on the issue, sources said.
The Supreme Court, last week, rejected a plea by companies such as Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea for extension in the payment schedule and asked all of them to deposit an estimated Rs 1.47 trillion in past dues for spectrum and licences. It threatened to initiate contempt proceedings against top executives of these firms for non-payment.
Some telecom firms are already struggling with mounting losses and debt and the additional liability has raised concerns of them defaulting on existing loans. Of the estimated dues that include interest and penalty for late payments, Airtel and Vodafone Idea owe about 60 per cent.

Supreme Court orders telcos to clear AGR dues by Mar 17, threatens contempt

SupremeCourt slammed mobile carriers on Friday for non-payment of billions of dollars in government dues and threatened them with contempt proceedings if they didn’t pay up by March 17.
The court, which had asked companies including Vodafone Idea and Bharti Airtel to pay 920 billion Indian rupees ($12.89 billion) in overdue levies and interest by Jan. 23, had rejected petitions seeking a review of its order last month.

"This is pure contempt, 100% contempt," judge Arun Mishra told lawyers for the companies and the government on Friday.
The trio of Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Reliance Jio, which is backed by Asia’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani, controls more than 90% of India’s mobile market. Airtel and Vodafone have both flagged going concern risks following the order.
The move threatens the survival of Vodafone Idea, a joint venture of Britain’s Vodafone Group Plc and India’s Idea Cellular, as the unit is saddled with about $3.9 billion in overdue payments.
The Supreme Court on Friday said the companies and the federal Department of Telecommunications (DoT) were liable for contempt of court.
"Should we wind up the Supreme Court now? Is there any law left in the country?" Mishra said.
"We will draw up contempt against everyone," he said.
Vodafone Idea, which owes the government about $4 billion, saw its shares fall as much as 19% after Friday’s ruling. The company had lost about 27% of its value this year at Thursday’s close after falling 73% in 2019.
The broader Indian stock market also reversed early gains to trade lower after the ruling as investors were worried about its strain on already over-exposed banks. The broader NSE Nifty 50 index was down 0.15% during mid-day’s trading.

SC rejects Delhi rape case convict's appeal against rejection of mercy plea

The SupremeCourt on Wednesday dismissed the plea of death row convict Mukesh Singh against rejection of mercy petition by President Ram Nath Kovind.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

"All relevant material including judgements pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict," the bench added.
The bench also noted that alleged sufferings in jail can't be grounds to challenge rejection of mercy plea by President.
The President had on January 17 rejected the mercy petition of the 2012 Delhi gang-rape and murder case convict. Mukesh Singh, 32, had submitted the plea challenging the rejection of the mercy petition last week.

The Supreme Court had earlier questioned Singh as to how he can allege 'non application of mind' by the President in rejecting his mercy petition.

Citizenship Act: SC refuses to grant stay, gives Centre four weeks to reply

The SupremeCourt on Wednesday gave the Centre four weeks to respond to pleas challenging the validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and said it will set up a five-judge Constitution bench to hear the petitions.
While making it clear that it will not grant any stay on the CAA without hearing the Centre, a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde restrained all high courts from hearing pleas on CAA till it decides the petitions.

The bench said it will hear petitions pertaining to Assam and Tripura separately as the problem with CAA in these two states is different from rest of the country.
"The petitions concerning Assam and Tripura as well as matters related to Uttar Pradesh, which is going ahead with the implementation of CAA without framing any rules, can be dealt with separately," the court said.
Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the government has been given copies of around 60 pleas out of the 143 petitions.
He said it wanted time to respond to pleas which have not been served on it.
ALSO READ: Cabinet nod to protests to SC hearing: The story of Citizenship Act so far
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal urged the bench to put on hold operation of CAA and postpone exercise of the National Population Register (NPR) for the time being.
The court said it will not grant any stay on CAA without hearing the Centre on the matter.
"Will pass order on granting any interim relief to petitioner opposing CAA after four weeks," the bench said.
The CAA seeks to grant citizenship to migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.
President Ram Nath Kovind gave assent to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 on December 12, turning it into an Act.
Several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the CAA, including by RJD leader Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi.
Several other petitioners include Muslim body Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, All Assam Students Union (AASU), Peace Party, CPI, NGOs 'Rihai Manch' and Citizens Against Hate, advocate M L Sharma, and law students have also approached the apex court challenging the Act.

Supreme Court dismisses AGR review petitions filed by telecom companies

The Supreme Court Thursday dismissed review petitions of top telecom firms including Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea seeking review of its earlier order asking them to pay Rs 1.47 trillion in past statutory dues by January 23 saying it did not find any "justifiable reason" to entertain them.
The apex court had on October 24 ruled that the statutory dues need to be calculated by including non-telecom revenues in what is known as adjusted gross revenues (AGR) of telcos.

A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, S A Nazeer and M R Shah in-chamber hearing did not find merit in the review plea and dismissed it.
The telecom companies had sought an open court hearing on their review petition but the Supreme Court decided to stick to its convention of doing an in-chamber hearing.
"Applications for hearing in open Court/oral hearing are rejected. Having perused the Review Petitions and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the review petitions.
The Review Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed," the bench said.
The apex court had on October 24 last year upheld the AGR definition formulated by the DoT and termed as "frivolous" the nature of objections raised by telecom service providers.
Bharti Airtel, in its plea, had sought review of the directions on aspects of levy of interest, penalty and interest on penalty relating to AGR.
Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had told Parliament in November that Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea and other telecom companies owe the government as much as Rs 1.47 trillion in past statutory dues.
He had added that there is no proposal at present to waive interest and penalties on such dues.
In replies to separate questions in the Lok Sabha, Prasad had said telecom companies owe the government Rs 92,642 crore in unpaid licence fee, and another Rs 55,054 crore in outstanding spectrum usage charges.
In an affidavit filed earlier in the top court, the DoT said Airtel owed Rs 21,682.13 crore as licence fee to the government and dues from Vodafone totalled Rs 19,823.71 crore, while Reliance Communications owed Rs 16,456.47 crore. BSNL owed Rs 2,098.72 crore, and MTNL Rs 2,537.48 crore.
Holding that interest and penalty have rightly been levied on the telecom companies, the apex court had made it clear that there would be no further litigation on the issue and it would fix a time-frame for calculation and payment of dues by the telecom companies.

SC rejects curative petitions of 2 death row convicts in Nirbhaya case

The SupremeCourt Tuesday refused to stay the execution of two of the four death row convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case while dismissing their curative petitions against their conviction and capital punishment.
The four convicts -- Vinay Sharma (26), Mukesh Kumar (32), Akshay Kumar Singh (31) and Pawan Gupta (25) -- are to be hanged on January 22 at 7 am in Tihar jail as a Delhi court had issued their death warrants on January 7.

A five-judge bench of the apex court, during in-chamber proceedings, rejected the curative petitions filed by Vinay and Mukesh.
"The applications for oral hearing are rejected. The applications for stay of execution of death sentence are also rejected," a bench, headed by Justice N V Ramana, said in its order.
"We have gone through the curative petitions and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this court in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra & another, reported in 2002 (4) SCC 388.
"Hence, the curative petitions are dismissed," said the bench, also comprising Justices Arun Mishra, R F Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan.
A curative petition is the last and final legal remedy available to a person.
The five judges were unanimous that there was no merit in the curative petitions filed by the two convicts, Vinay and Mukesh, on January 9.
The other two convicts, Akshay and Pawan have not filed curative petitions yet.
Soon after the top court dismissed the curative pleas of the two convicts, the Nirbhaya's mother Asha Devi said: "Today is a big day for me because I have been struggling for seven years, till date. Today is a big day for me but the biggest day would be January 22 when the four would be hanged." "I hope that the other remedies available to them would be similarly rejected in future and they will be hanged on January 22. I have fought according to law for seven years and we will get justice legally," she told a private TV channel.
Advocate A P Singh, who is representing the convicts in the case, said that he would soon file mercy petition before the President on behalf of Vinay and Mukesh.
He said he would also file curative petitions on behalf of Akshay and Pawan in the apex court.
"I have sought details from Tihar Jail about the conduct of these convicts during their stay on the prison from 2012 till 2019. Once I will receive those details, I will file curative petitions for Akshay and Pawan," Singh told PTI.
He said that last week, he had approached the jail authorities seeking details about conduct of these convicts in the prison but he has not been provided with it yet.
Singh said that he is also planning to approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the trial court's January 7 order issuing death warrants against these convicts.
He said once he would file mercy petition, he would bring it to notice of the court so that the scheduled execution could be suspended.
A 23-year-old paramedic student, referred to as Nirbhaya, was gang-raped and brutally assaulted on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012, in a moving bus in south Delhi by six people before being thrown out on the road.
She died on December 29 at Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore.
The Supreme Court had in 2017 upheld the capital punishment awarded to the four convicts by the Delhi High Court and a trial court.
One of the six accused in the case, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail.
A juvenile, who was among the accused, was convicted by a juvenile justice board and was released from a reformation home after serving a three-year term.
On July 9, 2018, the apex court had dismissed the review pleas filed by three of the convicts in the case, saying no grounds had been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.
On December 18 last year, the top court had dismissed the plea filed by Akshay seeking review of its 2017 judgement upholding his death penalty.

Amrapali case: SC orders ED to attach corporate properties of JP Morgan

The SupremeCourt asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday to attach Indian properties of JP Morgan, which engaged in a transaction with the now-defunct Amrapali Group to allegedly siphon off home buyers' money in violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and FDI norms.
The ED said it had prima facie found violations of FEMA norms by the US-based JP Morgan and that a complaint in this regard was lodged.

The Supreme Court also allowed the ED to take into custody the defunct group's CMD, Anil Kumar Sharma, and two other directors, Shiv Priya and Ajay Kumar, who are behind bars on the top court's order, for interrogation as regards alleged money-laundering offences.
It said the central agency could take them into custody immediately and once their interrogation was over, they could be sent back to a prison here.
According to the share subscription agreement between JP Morgan and Amrapali Group, the US-based firm had invested Rs 85 crore on October 20, 2010 to have a preferential claim on profits in the ratio of 75 per cent to JP Morgan and 25 per cent to the promoters of Amrapali Homes Project Private Limited and Ultra Home.
Later, the same number of shares was bought back from JP Morgan for Rs 140 crore by two companies -- M/s Neelkanth and M/s Rudraksha -- owned by a peon and an office boy of Amrapali's statutory auditor Anil Mittal.
A bench of justices Arun Mishra and U U Lalit was told by ED Joint Director Rajeshwar Singh, who is supervising the probe against JP Morgan, that the MNC remitted the money back to the United States.
"They (JP Morgan) have a lot of properties in India. We want you to attach their office or corporate properties of a like amount. Then they will come running to us and we will see to it," the bench said.
Singh said the adjudication process against the firm had begun in accordance with law.
On December 2 last year, the ED had informed the top court that it had prima facie found evidence of violation of FEMA by the multi-national firm and recorded the statements of the country head of the company with regard to dealings with the Amrapali Group.
It had said though the investigation was underway, prima facie it appeared that there were also violations of the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and that appropriate actions were being taken.
The apex court had then directed the ED that the investigation should be carried out impartially, properly and expeditiously within a period of three months.
On July 23 last year, the Supreme Court had cracked its whip on errant builders for breaching the trust of home buyers, ordered cancellation of Amrapali Group's registration under real estate law RERA and ousted it from its prime properties in the NCR by nixing the land leases.
It had ordered a probe by the ED into allegations of money laundering and to look into the charge of FEMA violation by JP Morgan.
"The money of the home buyers has been diverted. The directors diverted the money by the creation of dummy companies, realising professional fees, creating bogus bills, selling flats at an undervalued price, payment of excessive brokerage etc. They obtained investment from JP Morgan in violation of FEMA and FDI norms," the top court had said.
It had said the equity shares of the group were purchased at an exorbitant price to suit the requirements of JP Morgan and the Amrapali Zodiac Developers Pvt Ltd had diverted home buyers' funds.
"The shares were overvalued for making payments to JP Morgan. It was adopted as a device for siphoning off the money of the home buyers to foreign countries," the top court had said as it accepted the reports of forensic auditors.
It had also noted that the shares of Amrapali Zodiac from JP Morgan were ultimately purchased for Rs 140 crore by M/s Neelkanth and M/s Rudraksha, shell companies owned by a peon and an office boy respectively.
"The transactions of Amrapali Zodiac Developers Pvt Ltd with JP Morgan were clearly in order to avoid the provisions of the Companies Act," it had said.
The Supreme Court had said it was apparent that M/s Rudraksha was created for money laundering as its two directors and shareholders had no income.

Cyrus Mistry actions hurt Tata group interests, Tata Sons tells SC

In its petition to the SupremeCourt, Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata group, has said the Mistry camp had at no point sought any prayer regarding the quashing of the appointment of present Tata group chairman, N Chandrasekaran as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons and yet, the NCLAT has declared Chandra's appointment as illegal. This NCLAT order, Tata Sons appeal says, needs to be reversed and set aside.
In its petition filed in the SC today, Tata Sons said the NCLAT order needs to be set aside in view of the fact that former Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry actions as a Director of Tata Sons were causing grave threat to the integrity of Tata Sons Board apart from causing prejudice to Tata Sons interests. The SC will hear the petition next week.

Tata Sons said several action taken by Mistry after his removal from Tata group hurt its interests.
"This was clearly borne out from the extensive oral and written arguments rendered on behalf of Tata Sons before the NCLAT, pointing out that a purportedly confidential email addressed by Cyrus Mistry to Tata Sons Board of Directors was leaked, and confidential board minutes was put in public domain at the instance of Cyrus Mistry and he had unilaterally and in a wholly unauthorized manner corresponded with the income tax authorities (holding himself out to be a Principal Officer of Tata Sons) and submitted documents of Tata Sons to the income tax authorities. It was in view of these reckless and irresponsible acts that certain shareholders of Tata Sons had moved a requisition for the removal of Cyrus Mistry as the Director of Tata Sons," the petition said.
Tata Sons said soon after Mistry was removed as Tata Sons Chairman in October 2016, an email written by Mistry to Tata Sons directors was leaked to the media.
"Without getting into the controversy as to who was responsible for leaking the email, the fact of the matter is that the email made several unfounded, false and personal allegations against Tata Sons directors. Allegations with respect to the business of Tata Sons, as also of the operating companies, were also made in the said email. This email found widespread media coverage and resultantly led to a lot of concern and enquiry by various stakeholders of Tata companies, apart from creating sudden and unexplained volatility in the share prices of the listed Tata companies," the Tata petition said.
Stock exchanges and other regulators also sought details from Tata companies. "It was felt necessary to bring a quietus to the chaos created by Mistry’s email dated 25 October 2016. It is for this reason that Tata Sons was constrained to issue the press statement in order to quell the uncertainty and provide comfort and an assurance of stability to various stakeholders of Tata Sons and the Tata companies. Unfortunately, the NCLAT judgment construes the press statement in an entirely bizarre fashion, Tata Sons said. It relies on the press statement to show that the decision to replace Mistry had a ‘global effect’, without making it clear as to what this purported ‘global effect’ had to do with the legality of the decision to replace Mistry as the Executive Chairman, the petition said.
The NCLAT completely misconstrues the Tata press statement to hold that the fact that the statement was issued itself showed that the replacement of Mistry was not directorial in nature, Tata said. "Even mildly put, this is an extraordinarily unsustainable conclusion. There is no connection between issuance of th press statement by Tata Sons on 10 October 2016 and the legal issue of whether the grievance surrounding replacement of Mistry as Executive Chairman is in the nature of a directorial complaint or not. There is neither any legal nor factual connection between these two different aspects of the matter. Equally bizarre is the conclusion reached in the last line of paragraph that “The company and its Board also understood that such removal may lead to a sense of uncertainty of ‘Tata Sons Limited’ and ‘group companies’ and resulting in winding up”. It is truly perplexing as to how the Impugned Judgment concludes that the press statement displayed that the Appellant and its Board understood that the replacement of Executive Chairman would result in the winding up of Tata Sons, the Tata petition said.
The NCLAT judgment, the Tata group said, has been passed without appreciating the well settled position that no reasons are required to be given either by the board members or the shareholders for exercising their right to vote in any board meeting or general meeting, as the case may be."Hence, no reasons were required to be recorded for Mistry’s replacement or removal as Chairman or Director. At any rate, such reasons were not justiciable in the present proceedings," the petition said.
"The clear illegality in the NCLAT judgment is amplified by the fact that it orders restoration of Mistry to the position of the Executive Chairman of the Tata sons for the “rest of the tenure”. This relief had been specifically given up by Mistry companies before NCLT and, as also the NCLAT. The re-instatement is therefore, suprising, it said.
The Tata petition said a good review by the Nomination and Remuneration Committee of Tata Sons overlooks the fact that the NRC is not representative of the view of the entire Board, as it only consists of three Directors. "This is why the final decision of the NRC is subject to approval by the Board. The board only approved the change in the remuneration of Mistry in the ordinary course of business as per usual practice and did not make any comment on his performance as the Executive Chairman," the petition said.
"It is submitted that whether or not a person is fit to hold the position of an Executive Chairman is a matter to be decided by the Board in its collective commercial wisdom. The NCLT or the NCLAT, as the case may be, cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Board of Directors and decide the suitability and fitness of a particular person to act as the Chairman. In the present case, since the Board had overwhelmingly (7 out of 9 Directors) decided to replace Mistry as the Executive Chairman, it was wholly illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the NCLAT to reverse this decision and to seek to foist upon an unwilling Board, its former replaced Chairman, which cannot even otherwise be done as his tenure is already over. In other words, even assuming for the sake of argument that there was any infirmity in the process adopted by the Board to replace Mistry even that did not warrant a direction of reinstatement of Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons, the Tata group said.
The NCLAT Judgment attributes the so called loss in the Tata companies to the Trusts Nominated Directors (on the ground that they enjoy affirmative voting right) and casts blame on them for allowing the Tata Companies to function in a manner which caused loss. The order further holds that the impairment of confidence with reference to the conduct of Tata Sons was not attributable to probity qua Cyrus Mistry but to unfair abuse of powers on the part of others. The aforesaid findings and conclusions reached by NCLAT are plainly unsustainable and totally wrong. "The Trusts Nominated Directors were never in charge of the affairs of the Tata Companies. The Executive Management of the Appellant vested with Cyrus Mistry, who was also the Chairman of the Tata Companies. There is no material or evidence on record to suggest that Cyrus Mistry wanted to cut the losses in the Tata companies and the same was thwarted by the Trusts Nominated Directors by using the affirmative vote or otherwise. On the contrary, one of the biggest reasons for dissatisfaction with the performance of Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman was that he had failed to take appropriate action with respect to the legacy issues and bring back on track the concerned Tata Companies. In this view of the matter, the conclusion that it is the Trusts Nominated Directors which are to be blamed for the functioning of the Tata Companies while absolving Cyrus Mistry of his responsibilities, is palpably erroneous, Tata Sons said.
The NCLAT order finds the replacement of Cyrus Mistry to have been effected “without following the normal procedure under Article 118”. However, it assigns no reason for this finding. It does not even notice the detailed arguments made orally, as also in writing, by Tata Sone before the NCLAT or even the reasons recorded in the Judgment of the NCLT stating that Article 118 only applied to the constitution of the Selection Committee for the purposes of appointment of a new Executive Chairman and such Selection Committee was not required to be constituted for the purpose of replacement of an Executive Chairman, the petition said.
The Tata group said in granting the relief purporting to restore Cyrus Mistry to the position of the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons, the NCLAT Judgment fails to consider the implications of issuing such directions which have no legal efficacy and yet which could be prejudicial to the interests of the concerned companies and their various stakeholders. The NCLAT failed to look at the issue of expiry of tenure – although it appears to have recognised that it lacked the jurisdiction to issue a direction extending tenures. "The Judgement also omits to consider the settled legal position that in case of tenure appointments, the appointment stands concluded upon completion of the respective tenure. In the present case, Cyrus Mistry’s tenure as Executive Chairman stood expired on 31.03.2017 and thus, the same cannot be restored.
Secondly, Tata Sons said the NCLAT failed to consider that any direction to restore a person to a post as sensitive as Executive Chairman should not be granted if it would lead to disharmony in the working of the company. "Given the hostility of Cyrus Mistry towards the Appellant (as reflected in the actions taken by and at the behest of Cyrus Mistry against Tata Sons and its stakeholders), the reinstatement of Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons would not be in the interest of the companies. Further, before issuing such a direction that NCLAT should have taken into account the fact that Chandrasekaran took over as Executive Chairman almost three years ago and is now firmly in the saddle and has accelerated part of growth with significant improvement in financial parameters of Tata Sons.

Sangh meets two of three objectives with Supreme Court ruling on Ayodhya

After the Supreme Court verdict on Saturday, the Sangh Parivar and its electoral arm, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have accomplished much of their “core agenda”, of scrapping Article 370, the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya, and implementation of a uniform civil code (UCC).
The question that vexed many and was asked on Saturday to both Sangh Parivar leaders as also those representing the Muslim community, was whether there could now be a renewed push to temple politics centred on demands to demolish mosques in Varanasi and Mathura.

In the past few months, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has shifted the goalposts for the Narendra Modi government 2.0 to implementing the national register of citizens (NRC) across the country, and ensuring the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Bill in the forthcoming winter session of Parliament.
On the question of Varanasi and Mathura, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, addressing a press conference in the national capital, was taciturn in his response. He suggested that the RSS may not take up Mathura and Varanasi, and would focus on manushya nirman.
“There was a historic background to the RSS being involved with Ayodhya. As an organisation we don’t otherwise involve ourselves in agitations and we will revert to our man-making mission,” Bhagwat said.
The Vishva Hindu Parishad, an arm of the RSS, had since the 1960s kept the Ram Janmabhoomi issue alive with the BJP adopting it as its principal plank in its Palampur resolution in 1989.
On Kashi and Mathura, VHP working president Alok Kumar said the outfit is currently focussed on construction of a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya and it has no time to raise any other demands. “About Kashi and Mathura, I must make it clear that Supreme Court judgement is not the end of the story, it is the beginning,” Kumar said.
Mumbai Police personnel outside the BJP state headquarters in Mumbai on Saturday | Photo: PTIMumbai Police personnel outside the BJP state headquarters in Mumbai on Saturday | Photo: PTI
But people in the RSS rank and file believe it would be difficult to galvanise people on the issue of a temple yet again. The outfit is aware that economic slowdown and agrarian distress are its weak spots as also that of the BJP, as Assembly polls in the last 12 months have shown.
Of the Sangh Parivar’s core agenda, provisions of Article 370, that granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, were scrapped on August 5, and now the SC has cleared the way for the construction of a “grand” Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
As for its third core agenda of implementing a UCC, the BJP in its 2019 Lok Sabha election manifesto had “reiterated” its stand to “draft a Uniform Civil Code, drawing upon the best traditions and harmonising them with the modern times”.
A small step in this direction was taken with making triple talaq a punishable offence in the last Parliament session. But UCC is difficult to implement.
A report by a committee the Ministry of Law and Justice instituted during the tenure of the previous Modi government had elaborated on how marriage, divorce and social practices differed within communities that identify themselves as Hindus. Opposition parties have demanded the government present a draft UCC for debate and discussion in the public sphere and Parliament.

Disputed Ayodhya land goes to Ram, Sunni board to be given a separate site

A five-judge Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, in a unanimous decision on Saturday, cleared the way for constructing a Ram Temple in Ayodhya at the disputed site, which would be given to a government-run trust. It directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.
Seeking to end a dispute that is about 150 years old and has significantly shaped India’s politics at least since 1989, the court said the mosque should be constructed at a “prominent site”, allotted either by the Centre or the Uttar Pradesh government, and a trust should be formed within three months for constructing the temple.
The court said the faith of the Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the site was undisputed, and he was symbolically the owner of the land. Yet, the court, in the judgment running into 1,045 pages, said it was also clear that the destruction of the 16th-century three-dome structure by Hindu kar sevaks, who wanted to build a Ram temple there, was a wrong that “must be remedied”.
ALSO READ: How the BJP used the idea of Ram to build a base cutting across caste lines
The Bench, also comprising judges S A Bobde , D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S Abdul Nazeer, termed “legally unsustainable” the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had partitioned the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya equally among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, and Ram Lalla.
“Dividing the land will not subserve the interest of either of the parties or secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquility,” the judgment said, delivered at the end of a 40-day hearing, the second-longest in the history of the apex court.
Justice Gogoi, who retires on November 17, read the judgment for the first 40 minutes.

Ganga Arati, VaranasiGanga aarti along the banks of Varanasi | Photo: PTI
The court said the possession of the disputed 2.77-acre land rights would be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, but the possession would remain with a central government receiver.
It said Hindus had established their case that they were in possession of the outer courtyard and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board had failed to establish its case in the dispute. It asked the Centre to grant representation in the trust to Nirmohi Akhara, whose suit claiming management and “shebaiti” rights over the temple was dismissed. The Akhara later said it had “no regrets” about the judgment.
Zafar Ahmad Farooqui, chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, one of the main litigants in the dispute, welcomed the verdict.
“The Board has no plans to challenge it,” he said. “If any lawyer or any other person says the decision will be challenged by the Board, it should not be taken as correct,” Farooqui said.
ALSO READ: The Ayodhya case timeline: Events leading up to the historic judgment
In his initial reaction soon after the judgment, the Board’s counsel Zafaryab Jilani had said in Delhi: “The Ayodhya verdict has a lot of contradictions. We will seek a review.”
Jilani later clarified the press conference was organised by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and he had reacted as its secretary and not as counsel for the Sunni Waqf Board.
“Even the inner courtyard has been given to the other party. It is not just,” Jilani said, but added the AIMPLB respected the verdict and said certain aspects of the judgment could help improve the secular structure of the country.
Asked about apprehensions that there could be similar claims in Mathura and Varanasi after the verdict, Jilani said: “It is expected that such apprehensions (‘Mathura-Kashi baki hai’) will not be there (after this judgment), and if anything occurs, the Supreme Court will be there.”
He said the Supreme Court invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in pronouncing the verdict. The lawyers’ team hoped that after this verdict no other mosque in India would be touched.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who inaugurated the Kartarpur corridor in the morning, tweeted after the judgment: “Whether it is devotion to Ram or Rahim, now is time for everybody to strengthen devotion to India.”
Later, in an 11-minute address to the nation in the evening, Modi said peace, unity, and amity were essential for the development of India and described November 9 as a day to forget any bitterness one might have. He said there was no place for fear, bitterness, and negativity in a new India.
ALSO READ: Ayodhya verdict: Police keep vigil online to check inflammatory comments
Addressing the nation, Modi likened the verdict to bringing down the Berlin Wall, which took place on this day in 1989 and united the two Germanys a year later. He drew a parallel between that event, the opening of the Kartarpur corridor, for which he was in Gurdaspur earlier in the day, and the Ayodhya verdict.
Nearly all parties have welcomed the decision, with Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L K Advani, who had spearheaded the political movement on the issue from 1990 onwards, stating that he had been vindicated.
Vishva Hindu Parishad hoped the trust would build the temple before 2024, and base its design prepared by the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat, who addressed a press conference in the national capital, said: “We wanted the issue to end, (and) this has happened. All sides (of the case) were evaluated and truth and justice have been highlighted.”
While neither the VHP leadership, nor Bhagwat gave any categorical assurance on the issue, the RSS chief indicated that the organisation might not take up similar disputes involving the temple sites in Mathura and Varanasi. “There was a historic background to the RSS being involved with Ayodhya, as an organisation we don't otherwise involve ourselves in agitations and we will revert to our manushya nirman (man making) mission,” Bhagwat said.
ALSO READ: Sangh meets two of three objectives with Supreme Court ruling on Ayodhya
All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen President Asaduddin Owaisi said the judgment was a “victory of faith over facts” and suggested a rejection of the five-acre plot given for constructing a mosque.
Owaisi quoted former Chief Justice of India J S Verma that the “Supreme Court is supreme ... and final but not infallible”.
“Modi 2.0 is to make India a Hindu Rashtra and the road of that vision begins from Ayodhya. The BJP and RSS will use this verdict, the National Register of Citizens, and the Citizenship Amendment Bill to achieve its poisonous agenda,” Owaisi said.
He claimed the disputed structure was “sacrificed” because of the Sangh Parivar and the conspiracy of the Congress.
Congress President Sonia Gandhi chaired a meeting of the Congress Working Committee, which passed a resolution that said the party respected the verdict. Congress Spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala said the party supported Lord Ram's temple construction.
All political parties appealed for peace and communal harmony. There were no untoward incidents till the time of filing this report, but the police in several states arrested people for posting content that was deemed provocative or warned them, and stopped bursting firecrackers.

Govt forms secretaries' panel on steps to ease financial stress in telecom

Days after the Supreme Court ordered telecom companies to pay as much as Rs 1.42 trillion in past statutory dues, the government is constituting a Committee of Secretaries (CoS) under the Cabinet Secretary to suggest measures to mitigate financial stress in the sector.
While the terms of reference of the panel do not explicitly mention the Supreme Court ruling of October 24, it has been asked to look at suggestions for deferring of payments for spectrum as well as re-look at the obligation to fund a universal service fund for operators.

The panel -- which will comprise secretaries of ministries of finance, telecommunication and law, among others -- is expected to meet shortly and submit recommendations in a time-bound manner, sources said.

SC orders transfer of Assam NRC coordinator Prateek Hajela to MP

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Centre and the state government to transfer Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC) Coordinator Prateek Hajela to Madhya Pradesh for the maximum period.
The direction comes apparently on account of threat perceptions to Hajela.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices S A Bobde and R F Nariman ordered inter-cadre transfer of Hajela on deputation.
Hajela had overseen the mammoth exercise of finalisation and publication of Assam NRC.
ALSO READ: Those not on NRC will enjoy all rights until they exhaust legal options
The final NRC was released on August 31 with 19,06,657 of the total 3,30,27,661 applicants excluded.

SC to hear PIL seeking interim protection for PMC Bank customers on Friday

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear on Friday a Public Interest Litigation seeking interim protection for around 15 lakh customers of crisis-hit Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank. The PIL also seeks laying down “comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines” to tackle crisis like the one at PMC Bank. Such crises, the PIL alleges, leads to disastrous consequences for the hard earned money of the common people, which is “plundered by few influential and unscrupulous people”.
The Punjab & Maharashtra Co-operative Bank has been put under restrictions by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) following the discovery of Rs 4,355-crore scam. Deposit withdrawals have been capped at Rs 40,000 over a six-month period, causing panic and distress among the depositors.

On September 24, the RBI set the withdrawal limit at Rs 1,000 per account, which it increased to Rs 10,000 the next day. On October 3, this limit was increased to Rs 25,000. The RBI said it reviewed the bank’s liquidity position and, with a view to reducing the hardship of the depositors, it decided to further enhance the limit. With this relaxation more than 77 per cent of the depositors will be able to withdraw their entire account balance. In a statement, the RBI said a forensic auditor had been appointed by the administrator to look into the related transactions. Economic Offenses Wing of the Maharashtra Police is already investigating the matter.
Apart from guidelines, the PIL also seeks that the central government and the Reserve Bank of India should be the Centre directed to ensure complete insulation and insurance of the hard-earned money of people that they deposit in various cooperative and nationalised banks. This, the petitioner said, could be done by enacting an appropriate measure of 100 per cent insurance coverage towards the deposited amount. In Mumbai, the Economic Offences Wing of the police on Wednesday arrested Surjit Singh Arora, one of the former directors of the bank. This is the fifth arrest in the case.