Supreme Court dismisses three special leave petitions filed by Birlas

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed three special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by the Birlas, who contested the order of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court to make public the voting results of the annual general meetings (AGMs) of three MP Birla group companies. In the three companies Harsh V Lodha was reappointed director in two and has been allowed a share in profits in all of them, etc.
The companies in which he has been reappointed director are Vindhya Telelinks and Birla Cable. Lodha is chairman in the third, Birla Corporation.
“We are not inclined to entertain the SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The SLPs are dismissed,” the Supreme Court said in its order while reiterating that the single-judge Bench (of the Calcutta High Court, which gave the order last year not to publish the results, but the order was overturned by a Division Bench of the same court on May 4) must determine if it had the jurisdiction in the first place.

ALSO READ: MCX prepares for negative trading in all commodities after crude oil row
The apex court also asked the Bench to decide on the applications for interim relief, and give the final determination in a month.
A Birla family spokesperson said: “While the SLP moved before the Supreme Court was not entertained, the court granted protection to the Birlas and directed that the results of the AGMs will be subject to the decision of the single judge.”
The spokesperson added the Supreme Court order had thrown a lifeline to the probate issue, in which the Birlas were contesting the late Priyamvada Devi Birla’s will, which was made in favour of the Lodhas, who control key assets in the MP Birla group.
chart
Debanjan Mandal, legal counsel to Lodha and partner at solicitor firm, Fox & Mandal, said: “This verdict marks a major victory — the second one in a week — in the sustained efforts of these companies to thwart repeated attempts to disrupt their functioning, typically made ahead of their AGM.”
The Birla family spokesperson said the Supreme Court directive enabled the probate court to take another look at the disputed issues of reappointing Lodha and the matters relating his remuneration as director after hearing the companies concerned.
Mandal, however, said no order could be passed by the probate court against third-party companies without deciding the issue of jurisdiction. “Our client has maintained that these companies are not parties to the legal battle over Priyamvada Birla’s will, which is pending at the Calcutta High Court since 2004,” Mandal said.
ALSO READ: Rahul Bhatia-owned Interglobe Enterprises eyes failed Virgin Australia
The Birlas, through the defendants in the suit for probate of the last will of Priyamvada Devi Birla, had last year moved the Calcutta HC and obtained an injunction on declaring the results of polls at the annual general meetings of the three companies.
The resolutions that were disputed and held up included the reappointment of Lodha as director in Vindhya Telelinks and Birla Cable, his remuneration as a share in the profits, and the payment of dividend to shareholders of Birla Corporation.
According to Birla Corporation, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had ruled that the probate court hearing the dispute on the will should have first determined if it had the jurisdiction to impose restrictions on the operations of these companies, and set aside the injunctions passed by the single-judge Bench at the Calcutta High Court.

AGR order: After SC rap, DoT asks telcos to clear dues by midnight

After Supreme Court rap, the telecom department began issuing orders, directing companies such as Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea to clear dues before Friday midnight.
The DoT, which faced the ire of the Supreme Court for putting on hold recovery of dues from telecom companies, started issuing circle or zone-wise demand notices to firms, an order seen by PTI said.

The order issued on Friday by the UP (West) Telecom Circle asked "all telecom service providers" to clear dues by 11.59 pm Friday.
"With reference to subject cited above, you are hereby directed to make the payment of outstanding dues of licence fee and spectrum usage charges by 14.02.2020, 11:59 PM positively," it said.
One of the telecom operators, who did not wish to be named, confirmed the receipt of the said order from the circle.
While in all, 15 entities owe the government Rs 1.47 trillion -- Rs 92,642 crore in unpaid licence fee and another Rs 55,054 crore in outstanding spectrum usage charges, it is not immediately clear just how much of that has been sought by the government by midnight tonight.
The order issued the circle-based Controller of Communication Accounts came after the telecom department earlier on Friday withdrew its order that asked for no coercive action against telecom companies defaulting on statutory dues payment.
The circular was withdrawn by the telecom department immediately after the Supreme Court took a strong view of non-compliance in payment of dues by telecom companies.
The DoT order issued to its field offices subsequently had asked for "immediate necessary action" in compliance with the October judgment of the Supreme Court.
The direction by the DoT had said its previous order dated January 23, 2020 "stands withdrawn with immediate effect".
"It is directed to take immediate necessary action in compliance with the judgement dated October 24, 2019 of the Supreme Court," said the fresh order issued by the DoT.
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the managing directors and directors of telcos and other firms to explain why contempt action be not taken against them for non-compliance of its order to pay adjusted gross revenue (AGR) of Rs 1.47 lakh crore to the Department of Telecommunications.
Taking strong note of the non-compliance of its order, a bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice M R Shah expressed anguish over the order passed by DoT's desk officer, staying the effect of its verdict in AGR matter.
Of the three private players operating in the Indian telecom market, Vodafone Idea is considered to be in the most vulnerable position.
Vodafone Idea is staring at dues worth Rs 53,000 crore that includes up to Rs 24,729 crore of spectrum dues and another Rs 28,309 crore in licence fee, and the company had earlier warned of shutdown if no relief was given.
Vodafone Idea in its earnings statement on Thursday had also sounded out warnings on "material uncertainty" casting "significant doubt" on its ability to continue as a going concern.
VIL had said on Thursday that the company's ability to continue as a going concern is essentially dependent on a positive outcome of its modification application in the Supreme Court on the AGR matter and any relief from the telecom department on payments.
Last week, Vodafone Chief Executive Officer Nick Read had said the situation in India is critical, following the AGR ruling of the Supreme Court. The British telecom major holds 45.39 per cent stake in VIL.
VIL had suffered staggering Rs 50,922 crore loss in the September quarter (highest ever loss posted by any Indian corporate), when it had made provisions for statutory dues following the Supreme Court's order in the adjusted gross revenue matter, although its losses in December quarter narrowed to Rs 6,439 crore.
Rival Bharti Airtel's liabilities added up to nearly Rs 35,586 crore, including licence fee and spectrum usage charge dues. But, Airtel had already said that the previously-mentioned material uncertainty on the group's ability to continue as a going concern "no longer exists" after the recent Rs 21,502 crore fund raising by it.
Most of the remaining liability is with state-owned BSNL/MTNL and some of the shut/bankrupt telecom companies.

AGR order: After SC rap, DoT asks telcos to clear dues by midnight

After Supreme Court rap, the telecom department began issuing orders, directing companies such as Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea to clear dues before Friday midnight.
The DoT, which faced the ire of the Supreme Court for putting on hold recovery of dues from telecom companies, started issuing circle or zone-wise demand notices to firms, an order seen by PTI said.

The order issued on Friday by the UP (West) Telecom Circle asked "all telecom service providers" to clear dues by 11.59 pm Friday.
"With reference to subject cited above, you are hereby directed to make the payment of outstanding dues of licence fee and spectrum usage charges by 14.02.2020, 11:59 PM positively," it said.
One of the telecom operators, who did not wish to be named, confirmed the receipt of the said order from the circle.
While in all, 15 entities owe the government Rs 1.47 trillion -- Rs 92,642 crore in unpaid licence fee and another Rs 55,054 crore in outstanding spectrum usage charges, it is not immediately clear just how much of that has been sought by the government by midnight tonight.
The order issued the circle-based Controller of Communication Accounts came after the telecom department earlier on Friday withdrew its order that asked for no coercive action against telecom companies defaulting on statutory dues payment.
The circular was withdrawn by the telecom department immediately after the Supreme Court took a strong view of non-compliance in payment of dues by telecom companies.
The DoT order issued to its field offices subsequently had asked for "immediate necessary action" in compliance with the October judgment of the Supreme Court.
The direction by the DoT had said its previous order dated January 23, 2020 "stands withdrawn with immediate effect".
"It is directed to take immediate necessary action in compliance with the judgement dated October 24, 2019 of the Supreme Court," said the fresh order issued by the DoT.
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the managing directors and directors of telcos and other firms to explain why contempt action be not taken against them for non-compliance of its order to pay adjusted gross revenue (AGR) of Rs 1.47 lakh crore to the Department of Telecommunications.
Taking strong note of the non-compliance of its order, a bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice M R Shah expressed anguish over the order passed by DoT's desk officer, staying the effect of its verdict in AGR matter.
Of the three private players operating in the Indian telecom market, Vodafone Idea is considered to be in the most vulnerable position.
Vodafone Idea is staring at dues worth Rs 53,000 crore that includes up to Rs 24,729 crore of spectrum dues and another Rs 28,309 crore in licence fee, and the company had earlier warned of shutdown if no relief was given.
Vodafone Idea in its earnings statement on Thursday had also sounded out warnings on "material uncertainty" casting "significant doubt" on its ability to continue as a going concern.
VIL had said on Thursday that the company's ability to continue as a going concern is essentially dependent on a positive outcome of its modification application in the Supreme Court on the AGR matter and any relief from the telecom department on payments.
Last week, Vodafone Chief Executive Officer Nick Read had said the situation in India is critical, following the AGR ruling of the Supreme Court. The British telecom major holds 45.39 per cent stake in VIL.
VIL had suffered staggering Rs 50,922 crore loss in the September quarter (highest ever loss posted by any Indian corporate), when it had made provisions for statutory dues following the Supreme Court's order in the adjusted gross revenue matter, although its losses in December quarter narrowed to Rs 6,439 crore.
Rival Bharti Airtel's liabilities added up to nearly Rs 35,586 crore, including licence fee and spectrum usage charge dues. But, Airtel had already said that the previously-mentioned material uncertainty on the group's ability to continue as a going concern "no longer exists" after the recent Rs 21,502 crore fund raising by it.
Most of the remaining liability is with state-owned BSNL/MTNL and some of the shut/bankrupt telecom companies.

Supreme Court gives telecom companies 3 months time to clear AGR dues

The Supreme Court (SC) has given telecom companies three months to comply with its order, upholding the government’s definition of adjusted gross revenue (AGR) and asked them to file a compliance report after depositing the money.
The SC had on Thursday said there would be no extension of time from a time frame decided by it.

It had also said the telecom companies would have to pay the fine and penalties, apart from the AGR dues. The payout by telcos could rise to an estimated Rs 1.33 trillion once spectrum usage charges (SUC) linked to the AGR are taken into account.
While Bharti Airtel has pending licence fee dues of nearly Rs 21,700 crore, the dues of the combined entity of Vodafone Idea amount to nearly Rs 28,300 crore. Anil Ambani-led Reliance Communications, which is undergoing insolvency proceedings, has pending licence dues of nearly Rs 16,500 crore, according to an affidavit submitted by the DoT with the SC, in July.
The concept of the AGR came into being after the New Telecom Policy of 1999 suggested that telecom service providers could migrate from a regime of “fixed licence fee to a revenue-sharing fee model”. In addition, these telecom operators were also required to pay spectrum usage charges (SUC) for the use of radio frequency spectrum allotted to them.
This arrangement, however, ran into trouble after the telecom service providers challenged the very definition of AGR. In 2003, the Association of Basic Telecom Operators filed the first plea in the case when it approached the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) challenging the definition of AGR as decided by the then government. The telecom operators had then said that DoT should have determined the AGR and the extent of it based only on the recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai).
The DoT had then included dividend income, interest income on short-term investment, discounts on calls, revenues from other activities separately licensed, and reimbursement under the Universal Service Fund under AGR. While hearing the telecom operators’ plea against the DoT definition of AGR, the TDSAT had sent the matter back to Trai and said not enough consultations were made.

'Not an extra day': SC wants arguments in Ayodhya case to end by Oct 18

The Supreme Court Thursday asked Hindu and Muslim parties to give it a time for completing arguments in the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, warning there it will not allow hearings after October 18.
"There will not be any extra day after October 18. It will be miraculous, if we deliver the judgement in four weeks in the matter," said Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, who is set to retire on November 17.

CJI-headed 5-judge bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, asked Muslim parties to wrap up their arguments on the ASI report during the course of the day and continue to other arguments.
There are holidays in October for Dussehera and Diwali, and only one advocate of the four Hindu parties will be allowed to give the rejoinder arguments.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is appearing for the Muslim parties, suggested that the extra-one hour arrangement of hearings till 5pm should continue.
The CJI told lawyers appearing for parties who wanted to intervene that "we will go on hearing the arguments. If any new point is there you can make your submission at the rejoinder stage. Enough is enough, today is 32nd day of hearing in the matter, we cannot allow this plea or that".
On September 18, the top court had set October 18 as deadline for conclusion of hearings land title dispute, which raised the possibility of a verdict in the case by mid-November.
The apex court had also said the parties to the dispute can amicably resolve the matter through mediation if they wanted to, but the lawyers must conclude the day-to-day hearings by October 18 so that the judges get about four weeks to write the judgment.
It had said that the day-to-day proceedings in the land dispute case have reached "an advanced stage" and will continue.
The apex court had on August 6 commenced day-to-day proceedings in the case as the mediation proceedings initiated to find the amicable resolution had failed.
The court had taken note of the report of the three-member panel, also comprising spiritual guru and founder of the Art of Living foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu, that mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months, did not result in any final settlement and it had to decide the matter pending before it.
The court, which had on March 8 referred the matter for mediation, had asked for in-camera proceedings to be completed within eight weeks, but later granted time till August 15 after the panel's earlier report said the mediators were "optimistic" about an amicable solution.
The top court fixed the seat for mediation process in Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh, around 7 km from Ayodhya, and said adequate arrangements, including the venue of the mediation, place of stay of the mediators, their security, travel should be forthwith arranged by the state government.
It had perused a report about the progress of mediation process till July 18 and said its contents will remain confidential.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
The Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed site in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi, was demolished on December 6, 1992, sparking communal riots in the country.

Sitaram Yechury's affidavit in SC challenges govt's claims on Kashmir

CPI (M) chief Sitaram Yechury's affidavit in the Supreme Court has challenged some of the government's claims that normalcy is returning in Kashmir. After the Supreme Court allowed him to visit the state, Yechury was in Kashmir on August 29 and 30 to meet his friend and party colleague Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami, who has been ailing.
On his return, Yechury filed an affidavit on September 2. He said in the affidavit that his experience of the entire visit and interaction with Tarigami has led him to believe that the 'unlawful detention' of his party colleague and 'other restrictions' have 'aggravated his severe and chronic health condition' and had affected his and his family's mental health.

Yechury said that the situation on the ground in Kashmir, to the extent that he saw, was completely contrary to what the government is indicating. He also noted that the family was running low on cash as they are not being allowed to leave their house for nearly a month now, and none can visit them.
In his plea, Yechury stated that there was no order to detain Tarigami, and the Kashmir leader and his family members were under 'de-facto house arrest' illegally.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justices S A Bobde and S A Nazeer heard Yechury on Thursday, and ordered that Tarigami be shifted from Srinagar, where he is under detention at his home, to New Delhi's AIIMS without any delay.
The bench issued notice to the Centre and the Jammu and Kashmir administration on Yechury's plea that there was no common order for Tarigami's detention. The bench sought a reply within one week and posted the matter for further hearing on September 16.
"We want to reserve our right to challenge the detention of the former MLA in habeas corpus (bring the person) plea," Yechury said in the court. The SC had allowed Yechury to visit Kashmir to meet his ailing party colleague and file an affidavit on his health condition.
In his affidavit submitted to the SC, Yechury said that right from the point when he landed in Srinagar on August 29 and left on the afternoon of August 30, the local administration did not allow him to move on his own to meet Tarigami.
Yechury said Senior Superintendent of Police Mir Imtiyaz Hussain refused to leave his side even when he was with Tarigami in his house in Srinagar. Imtiyaz sat 'uninvited' in the drawing room “although there was no need for him to be present there”, Yechury has stated in the affidavit. The officer eventually left the room when Yechury specifically asked him to.
When Yechury asked Tarigami about the charges under which he has been detained, the officer indicated to him that there were no legal charges against Tarigami and that the leader was 'free'.
Tarigami said no order of detention had been shown to him, his security has been instructed by the authorities not to allow him or his family members to move out of the house for the last 25-days.
According to the affidavit, he told Yechury that neither he nor any of his family members were allowed leave the house, or anyone allowed to enter the house to meet them. He and his family were in “de facto” house arrest, he told Yechury. Security officers buy provisions for the family.
Yechury noted in his affidavit that Tarigami’s house arrest has led to worsening of his health condition as he has been unable to visit the hospital, or contact his family doctor. At Yechury’s insistence, a doctor visited Tarigami’s house on August 30.
Tarigami told Yechury that he had no means of communicating with his family or friends in rest of the Srinagar, Kashmir or India, as neither mobile networks nor landline networks are working. He said the two landlines in his house were non-functional which made it difficult to “even seek emergency medical help”. He has also been unable to contact his regular doctors who knows his medical history.
Yechury was not allowed to stay overnight with Tarigami at his house, taken to a government guest house, and brought back to his friend’s house next morning.

SC upholds homebuyers' status as financial creditors in insolvency law

In a big setback for real estate developers, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the amendments made to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) that classified homebuyers as financial creditors. Holding that the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act (RERA) is to be read harmoniously with the IBC, a three-judge Bench led by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman said while the two pieces of legislation must co-exist, “in the event of a clash, RERA must give way to the Code”.
“Remedies that are given to allottees of flats or apartments are therefore concurrent remedies… such allottees of flats or apartments being in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as well as the triggering of the Code,” the Bench said.

Last year, the government amended the IBC to include homebuyers as financial creditors with the ability to sit in the meetings of the committee of creditors (CoC) and have voting rights when it came to choosing a resolution plan. This was affirmed in a judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which held that amounts raised by developers under the assured return schemes had the “commercial effect of a borrowing”, and thus homebuyers would be financial creditors.
Developers and builders had challenged the government's decision as well as the NCLAT ruling, pleading it could lead to a situation wherein companies that had completed their projects on time and were in every way compliant with the law could be “jeopardised” by insolvency applications moved by individual homebuyers.
This would then mean that “a perfectly good management which has several projects on its hands can be removed at the instance of one allottee and either replaced – in which case the massive funds infused by the developer himself would be set at naught”, developers said in their arguments.
“Worse still, (the insolvency application would) lead to commercial death, in that, if there are no resolution plans or all resolution plans are rejected either by the committee of creditors or by the authorities under the Code, a perfectly solvent firm would then be wound up, which would not be in the interest of anybody,” they said.
The plea was, however, rejected by the court, which said the onus of proving that some allottees of flats and apartments were using the code just to blackmail them lay on them once the case was admitted in the NCLT.
“The real estate developer can also point out that the insolvency resolution process under the Code has been invoked fraudulently, with malicious intent, or for any purpose other than the resolution of insolvency. This the real estate developer may do by pointing out, for example, that the allottee who has knocked at the doors of the NCLT is a speculative investor and not a person who is genuinely interested in purchasing a flat or apartment,” the apex court said.
Acceding to the contention of builders and homebuyers that since the NCLT is given only 14 days to decide whether the company is in default or not, the apex court has asked the central government to ensure that both “the NCLT and the NCLAT are manned with sufficient members to deal with litigation that may arise under the Code generally, and from the real estate sector in particular”. “For this purpose, an affidavit be filed by the Union of India within three months from today as to the steps taken in this behalf,” the top court said.
Apart from members at the NCLT and NCLAT level, the SC Bench also asked all the states and Union territories to ensure that they had permanent members in RERA and its appellate tribunal. Such vacancies must be filled within three months from Friday, the court said.

Supreme Court upholds homebuyers' rights in fight against bankrupt builders

The Supreme Court upheld the ability of homebuyers to drag property developers into bankruptcy proceedings as several real estate firms are going bust in Asia’s third-largest economy.
Once a homebuyer establishes default before a bankruptcy court, the onus is on builders’ to prove that the consumer does not wish to take possession of their house to avoid proceedings, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Rohinton F Nariman said on Friday. The court ruled homebuyers’ rights will remain at par with lenders.

The verdict paves the way for resumption of several insolvency cases that had been put on hold pending a decision, and could potentially free up billions of rupees locked up in stalled projects. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government had amended the bankruptcy law last year to protect homebuyers rights in bankruptcy proceedings.
Homebuyers have the option to avail legal remedies before consumer court, real estate regulatory authorities, as well as bankruptcy courts, said Justice Rohinton F. Nariman. In case of conflicts with other laws, provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will prevail.
The verdict came on petitions by 181 builders including the Trump Organization’s partner in India, Ireo Pvt Ltd., and some of the country’s once-biggest builders such a Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Ansal Housing Ltd., and Supertech Ltd.
A series of economic shocks in the past three years, from the unexpected withdrawal of high-value rupee notes in 2016 to the sales tax introduced the following year, have dented property-market sentiment and caused funding for developers to dry up. That has left hundreds of thousands of homebuyers in the lurch as their life savings were locked away in half-completed apartments.
Rejection of builders’ petitions by the court also denies banks more independence in resolving stressed assets. Several companies, such as Jaypee Infratech Ltd., failed to reach a resolution as banks and homebuyers differed on the best acquirer for the bankrupt developer.

SC allows SFIO to reopen and recast IL&FS accounts for last five years

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to reopen and recast the accounts of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (IL&FS) and two of its key subsidiaries of five years starting 2012-13 (FY13). The order came on a plea moved by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), which sought to examine the books of IL&FS, IL&FS Financial Services (IFIN), and IL&FS Transportation Networks (ITNL) between FY13 and FY18.
The SFIO is a multi-disciplinary organisation under the MCA for detecting and prosecuting or recommending for prosecution white-collar crimes.

The recast of books, tax experts said, would help the SFIO find out exactly how they were inflated and by how much. It will also help determine the benefits accrued to the people involved in the process, which could aid in recovery. “At present, the SFIO has accessed IL&FS servers and other documents. This has helped put together a case against the former chairman and ex-directors. Once it gets access to all the accounts, it will be able to put together a stronger case and provide incriminating evidence against these people,” said a source.
The MCA had initially approached the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in this regard. In its plea, the ministry had said that prima facie, the SFIO investigation had found that the affairs of the company and its subsidiaries were mismanaged during the given period. Though the NCLT had not expressed any opinion on the submissions of the MCA against the then auditors of the company, it allowed the reopening of the books of the three companies and asked the ministry to name the person or firm it wished to appoint as auditors.
ALSO READ: ED summons senior executives of Deloitte in IL&FS money laundering case
“We further clarify that this order is without prejudice to the right of the auditors and all the parties present and will not affect the proceedings before the ICAI (Institute of Chartered Accountants of India) in any manner, which will be decided independently on its own merits,” the tribunal had said.
Following the NCLT order, Hari Sankaran, former vice-president and director of the company, had moved the NCLAT, alleging that the tribunal had passed the orders ex-parte and without hearing his arguments.
In its judgment on January 31, the NCLAT, while dismissing Sankaran’s plea, had said it found no merit in his plea that Section 230 of the Companies Act was a “draconian section”.
“Such submission cannot be accepted till any person challenges the provisions before the court of competent jurisdiction such as high courts and the Supreme Court,” the NCLAT had said.
ALSO READ: IL&FS fallout: From CARE to Icra, here're the lessons for rating agencies
Following the NCLAT judgment, Sankaran had approached the Supreme Court, which had initially stayed the NCLAT order on April 29. However, the MCA again moved the court, seeking vacation of its stay, which was granted on Tuesday. In its fresh plea, the MCA had said it needed to reopen and recast the accounts to get a fair picture of the financial position of these three firms.
Debt-laden IL&FS and its subsidiaries owe close of Rs 90,000 crore to their lenders. After the government’s takeover of the companies’ board last year, the new board has prepared a road map to pay off the debt. The board has classified IL&FS group companies into three categories -- green, amber, and red -- based on their financial health and ability to service debt obligations to secured and unsecured creditors.
ALSO READ: IL&FS scam: Here is the list of key players and allegations they are facing
Companies with no cash and not in a position to pay any creditor were classified as red, while those with enough to pay secured creditors but not unsecured ones were put under the amber category. The firms which have enough money to service all their debts to the secured as well as unsecured creditors were classified as green. So far, the companies under the green category have been allowed to service their debts.
What SFIO alleges
Top IL&FS management formed a “coterie” with auditors
Directors ran company as personal fiefdom
Books of accounts fraudulently falsified
Money illegally lent to IFIN group companies
Statutory auditors did not discharge duties diligently

SC asks govt to consider taking over Unitech, complete unfinished projects

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the government to look into the possibility of taking over Unitech Limited and completing the pending projects of the company. A two-judge bench led by Justice D Y Chandrachud also asked Attorney General K K Venugopal to render his assistance in the matter by convening a meeting at appropriate government levels and check whether the projects of the beleaguered real estate company can be handed over for completion to a state-owned company.
The government has been asked to consider the possibility of taking over the company and its projects in the interest the homebuyers and because the court itself lacks expertise in the fields of finance or real estate, the top court said.

The two-judge bench, while ordering the withdrawal of all the special facilities given to the company’s promoters Sanjay and Ajay Chandra, also hinted at starting a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)-led probe against Unitech. “In the present state of affairs, the court is left with no other alternative than to hand over the investigation to CBI,” the two-judge bench said.

Both Sanjay and Ajay Chandra have been lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail since August 9, 2017. They Chandra duo had been allowed a working space by the court to try and negotiate with buyers and investors to raise money and complete the pending projects. Jail authorities had also been directed by the top court to allow Sanjay Chandra's meetings with his company officials and lawyers so that he could raise money against the unencumbered assets of his company.
Earlier this year on January 23, the top court had refused to grant bail to Unitech promoters, as they had not complied with the court's October 30, 2017, order directing them to deposit Rs 750 crore. It had, in December, also ordered a forensic audit of the company’s books and assets. Accounting firm Grant Thornton had been asked by the top court to carry out the forensic audit of the company and all its subsidiary companies beginning January 2006.
Later, during a hearing in February, the top court had expressed its displeasure after Grant Thornton said that it had only received about 45 per cent data from the company’s officials. It had then warned the company of initiating contempt proceedings for obstructing judicial work, and said that all data, including that of ex-employees, must be handed over the forensic auditors.
On Thursday, following a request by the auditors, the top court asked the banks to provide bank statements of the promoters as well as the company within two weeks from now. The top court also warned that if there was any further delay in handing over the said data, it would ask the CBI to take the data from them and hand it over to the auditors.
Of the total 16,000 home-buyers affected by Unitech’s pending projects, nearly 4,700 buyers want a complete refund, while the other 9,400 odd buyers want either a refund, or a flat.
In April 2017, Sanjay and Ajay Chandra were arrested by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police. According to the sleuths of EOW, the Chandras are accused of allegedly duping buyers who had booked flats in their Greater Noida residential project to the tune of Rs 35 crore. The buyers alleged that Unitech failed to complete the project on time and also did not refund the money along with the interest.
"The collateral damage imposed upon the company as a result of the ludicrous, facetious, and fraudulent allegations in this arbitrarily drawn out case has continued to detriment the status of Unitech. However, assisted by these positive verdicts, I can assert with confidence, we have a solid plan of action in order to ensure the future of the company and expediting project constructions. Through collaboration with numerous lenders and asset reconstruction companies, I am optimistic that we will be able to raise the working capital necessary to accelerate construction across all projects," Sanjay Chandra, MD Unitech had said in an interview with Business Standard some time back.
According to a senior executive, who is part of Unitech’s management team, last year the company had been able to hand over 1,500 flats. However, it still needs to do the same for close to 15,000 more homebuyers. The company had been trying to get funds and is in talks to sell its land bank and auction some of its property in Uttar Pradesh. It was also trying to rope in a private equity fund. At the moment, the company has around five to six stalled projects in Gurgaon and roughly the same number in Noida and Greater Noida combined.

Rahul Gandhi citizenship: SC junks plea seeking direction for EC to bar him

The Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a plea seeking direction to the Centre and the Election Commission to debar Congress President Rahul Gandhi from contesting Lok Sabha elections till the issue of his citizenship is decided.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi rejected the contention of the petitioners, who said that in a form along with the annual data of a UK-based company in 2005-06, it was allegedly mentioned that Rahul Gandhi is a British citizen.

"If some company in some form mentions his nationality as British, does he become a British citizen," the bench also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna told the petitioners.

SC committee rejects sexual harassment allegations against CJI Ranjan Gogoi

A three-judge committee of the Supreme Court has "found no substance" in allegations made by a former court employee that Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had sexually harassed her.
A notice by the office of Supreme Court Secretary General said the committee's report dated May 5 is not liable to be made public, reported news agency PTI.

"The in-house inquiry committee has found no substance in the allegations in the complaint dated April 19 of a former employee of the Supreme Court," the court said in a statement.
ADVERTISING
The committee was set up after a former junior court assistant alleged that she was harassed at Gogoi's home, and that she was removed from her job unfairly. The 35-year-old woman also alleged that her husband and his brother were suspended from the Delhi Police as part of a harassment campaign.
Gogoi has rejected the allegations, saying they were part of a "larger conspiracy" to scuttle the court. “This is unbelievable,” said Gogoi on April 20 at a special hearing of the Supreme Court
“I should not stoop low even in denying it. There is some bigger force behind the woman,” he said after the allegations, dating from October, were reported in the media.
A committee comprising Justices S A Bobde, Indira Banerjee, and Indu Malhotra was set up to probe the allegations, but after appearing before it twice the complainant pulled out its proceedings on May 1.
She said she had “serious concerns and reservations” about the committee, alleging that she was not allowed a lawyer during the hearings and she felt intimidated.
AK Patnaik, a former Supreme Court judge, has been asked to probe an alleged conspiracy to frame Chief Justice in the sexual harassment case, and was to start his after in-house completed its report.

SC gives Rahul Gandhi another opportunity to explain 'chowkidar' remark

The Supreme Court gave Tuesday Congress president Rahul another opportunity Gandhi to file one more affidavit relating to his alleged contemptuous "chowkidar chor hai" remark.
Gandhi's lawyer admitted his client had made a mistake by wrongly attributing the remark to the apex court, but a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi observed that in the affidavit filed, at one point the Congress President is admitting the mistake and at one point denying of making contemptuous remarks.

"We have great difficulty in understanding what you want to say in the affidavit," said the bench, also comprising justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph.
The top court told Gandhi's counsel that it was not concerned with the political stand narrated in the affidavit. Gandhi said the use of word regret in the affidavit is like an apology for wrongly attributing the remark which was never made by the apex court.
BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi, who had filed the contempt petition against Gandhi, said it is the grossest kind of contempt.
The court posted the matter for hearing on May 6. 

SC refuses to interfere with EC order banning Modi biopic till May 19

The Supreme Court Friday refused to interfere with the Election Commission's order banning release of the biopic on PM Narendra Modi until May 19.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it was not inclined to entertain the application filed by producers of biopic challenging the EC's order.
"What survives in this now?" the bench, also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, said.
The counsel, appearing for producers, told the bench that the EC's order is contrary to the clearance given to the movie by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
"The issue is whether the movie can be exhibited at this time. The Election Commission has taken a decision. We are not inclined to entertain this," the bench said.
The EC had on April 22 submitted its detailed report to the top court on the biopic, saying the film was a "hagiography", which treated the subject with undue reverence, and its public screening during poll campaign would "tilt the electoral balance".
The poll panel had said in its 20-page report that the biopic "produces a political environment where an individual acquired cult status" and its public screening during the period when model code of conduct is in operation would favour a particular political party.
The EC said "there are several scenes depicting a major opposition party as corrupt and showing them in poor light. Their leaders have been depicted in such a manner that their identification is clear and obvious to viewers."

It said that the biopic was more than a biography and was a "hagiography" (which treats the subject as saints and gives undue reverence) and the construct of the movie was "unabashedly uni-dimensional", which puts an individual on a higher pedestal through use of specific symbols, slogans and scenes.
The report was submitted after the apex court had on April 15 directed the EC to re-examine its earlier order and take an informed decision on banning pan-India the release of the biopic after watching the full movie.
The court had asked the poll panel to provide its report to the producer of the movie.
The EC had on April 10 stalled the release of the film until the polls end, asserting that any biopic material with the potential to disturb the level-playing field during elections should not be displayed.
The commission, in a separate order, had also directed the producers "not to exhibit the film titled 'PM Narendra Modi' till further orders". The film was earlier set to release on April 11.
Acting on the complaints of political parties, including the Congress, the poll panel had also said that any poster or publicity material concerning any such certified content, which either depicts a candidate (including prospective) for the furtherance (or purported to further) of electoral prospects, directly or indirectly, shall not be put on display in electronic media in the area where MCC is in force.
The Left had also opposed the release of the film, saying it would disturb the level-playing field for other parties in the election and was in violation of the Model Code of Conduct.
The Modi biopic, starring Vivek Oberoi, has been the most-talked about movie this election season. Directed by Omung Kumar, it tells the story of Modi's rise to power from humble beginnings.
The apex court had on April 9 disposed of a petition filed by a Congress leader Aman Panwar seeking a stay on the release of the biopic, saying the Election Commission would be an "appropriate" place to seek the redressal.
The apex court had said it was not entertaining the petition for the stay on the release of the film which would be "premature" in view of the fact that the movie is yet to be certified by the Censor Board.
It said even if the film is released on April 11, as claimed by the Congress leader, it will be appropriate for him to seek a redressal from the Election Commission.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Rich and powerful are playing with fire: SC on conspiracy against CJI claim

The Supreme Court Thursday expressed anguish over the "systematic attack" on the judiciary and said time has come to tell the rich and powerful of this country that they are "playing with fire" and this must stop.
The apex court was hearing claims made by an advocate that there was a larger conspiracy to frame Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogi on allegations of sexual harassment.

The court said it will pass an order at 2 pm.
A special bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said that it was anguished with the way the judiciary has been treated for the past 3-4 years.
"The way this institution is treated in last few years we must say that we will not survive if this will happen," a bench also comprising Justices R F Nariman and Deepak Gupta said.
"There is a systematic attack, systematic game to malign this institution", the bench said.

Will go to root of lawyer's allegation of people trying to frame CJI: SC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would go to the root of the claims, made by lawyer Utsav Bains, that he had been approached by some people to “fix” the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Ranjan Gogoi by making false claims of sexual harassment against him.
“We will inquire. We will go to the root of alleged claims of fixers at work and manipulating judiciary. If they continue to work…none of us will survive. Fixing has no role to play in the system. We take it to the logical end" the three-judge Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman and Deepak Gupta said.

The three-judge Bench is hearing a suo-motto case after an advocate Utsav Bains had filed an affidavit claiming that he had been approached by certain people to frame CJI Gogoi in an alleged sexual harassment case. The advocate had also claimed that he was offered Rs 1.5 crore by a person named Ajay to represent the top court’s former woman employee who has accused CJI of harassing her.
ADVERTISING
ALSO READ: Lawyer submits report in SC on his claims about conspiracy to frame CJI
The claims were made by Bains after an unprecedented hearing at the top on court during which Gogoi had said that the allegations of sexual harassment against him were part of a larger conspiracy to “deactivate” the office of the CJI, and that he would “not stoop so low even to deny them”. This bench was assembled on Saturday after a former female employee of the apex court sent a detailed affidavit to the residences of 22 judges, giving details of the alleged harassment.
During the hearing on Wednesday, Bains filed his affidavit, which was perused by the three-judge bench, following which they summoned the chiefs of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Intelligence Bureau and Delhi Police to come to the court and meet the judges in their chamber. The three agencies, the court had observed, would help them in validating the claims made by Bains in the affidavit.
Later in the day, when the three judge Bench sat again, it asked Bains to file an additional affidavit after he claimed during the hearing that he had more “incriminating evidence” against the people who were trying to “deactivate” the office of the CJI. The top court will continue hearing the case on Thursday.

There has to be bigger force behind this: CJI on sexual harassment charges

The Supreme Court held an extraordinary hearing on Saturday after a former employee of the apex court accused Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment and persecution.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Gogoi was constituted after a sworn affidavit by the woman copies of which were sent to the residences of 22 apex court judges became public on Saturday.

During the hearing in CJI's court No 1, an unfazed Justice Gogoi said the allegations are unbelievable.
"This is unbelievable. I don't think I should stoop low even to deny these allegation," he said, adding, "There has to be bigger force behind this, they want to deactivate the office of CJI." The apex court registry in a notice earlier in the day said a three-bench headed by the CJI was being set up to deal with a "matter of great public importance touching upon the independence of judiciary". The bench also comprised justices Arun Mishra and Sanjiv Khanna The former employee has described two incidents of alleged molestation by Gogoi in her affidavit, both of which allegedly took place in October 2018, only days after he was appointed as the CJI.
Confirming that a letter by the woman has been received by several sitting judges.Supreme Court Secretary General Sanjeev Sudhakar Kalgaonkar said all the allegations made by the woman concerned are malafide and have no basis.
"No doubt, it is a malafide allegation," he said.
Stating that it was leaving it to the wisdom of media to act responsibly on allegations of sexual harassment against the CJI, the court said the independence of judiciary is under "very, very severe" threat.
"After 20 years of selfless service as judge, I have bank balance of Rs 6.80 lakh," he said.
"Nobody can catch me on money, people have to find something and they have found this: This is the reward CJI gets after 20 years of service," Justice Gogoi.
He made it clear that he will preside over the CJI court and discharge his judicial functions without any fear.
"I have taken this unusual and extraordinary step of sitting in court today because things have gone too far," he said.
Judiciary can't be made a scapegoat, says CJI Gogoi.

Daiichi case: Singh brothers to be jailed if guilty of contempt, warns SC

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed dissatisfaction over the replies filed by former Ranbaxy promoters Malvinder Singh and Shivinder Singh in response to its March 14 direction asking them to submit a concrete plan for paying Rs 4,000 crore to Daiichi Sankyo as directed by a Singapore tribunal.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it will now straightaway hear the contempt petition against the Singh brothers for non-payment of arbitral award amount to Japanese firm Daiichi Sankyo and send them to jail if violation of its orders is established.

The bench, also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, has now fixed the contempt petition of the Japanese firms against the former Ranbaxy promoters for hearing on April 11.
"You may be owning half of the world but there is no concrete plan as to how the arbitral amount would be realised. You said that somebody owed you Rs 6,000 crore.
But this is neither here nor there," the bench said.
The Japanese firm's contempt plea against the Singh brothers seeks recovery of Rs 4,000 crore from them as directed by the Singapore tribunal.
Daiichi had bought Ranbaxy in 2008. Later, it had moved the Singapore arbitration tribunal accusing that the Singh brothers had concealed information that Ranbaxy was facing probe by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Justice, while selling its shares.
The timeline of the Daiichi case:
Authority Defendant’s Date of filing of complaint/ hearing Complainant Reason
Supreme Court
Malvinder Mohan Singh
Shivinder Mohan Singh March 14, 2019 DaiiChi Sankyo Enforcement of the arbitration award by the Singapore International Court of Arbitration
SEBI - February 13, 2019 Fortis Healthcare Recovery of ICDs,
Economic Offences wing, SEBI, Delhi High Court, Malvinder Mohan Singh
Shivinder Mohan Singh 24 Jan, 2019 Whistle blowers from Religare and Fortis Selling of unencumbered assets
The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police
Ministry of Corporate Affairs Malvinder Mohan Singh Shivinder Mohan Singh
Sunil Godhwani
NK Ghosal
Criminal Complaint lodged on 20 December, 2018.
FIR filed Religare Finvest & Religare Enterprises ltd
(section 210,212,447 of the companies act) Recovery of Rs 2315 crores
SEBI Malvinder Mohan Singh Shivinder Mohan Singh
OCT 18, 2018 SEBI Directed Singh brothers to jointly repay Rs 4.03 billion with interest to Fortis Healthcare
Delhi High Court Malvinder Mohan Singh Shivinder Mohan Singh August 2, 2018 Daiichi Sankyo Froze all bank accounts.
Delhi High Court Malvinder Mohan Singh Shivinder Mohan Singh May , 2016 - Upheld the award. Maintain status quo
Singapore International Court of Arbitration Malvinder Mohan Singh Shivinder Mohan Singh
!4, November, 2012 Daiichi Sankyo Fraud and misleading information regarding the sale of Ranbaxy

Ex-SC judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose tipped to be India's first Lokpal

The name of former Supreme Court judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose is said to be in active consideration for appointment as the chief of country's first Lokpal, the anti-corruption ombudsman, officials said Sunday.
Justice Ghose, who retired from the Supreme Court in May 2017, is a member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

His name for the post is understood to be in active consideration by the Lokpal selection panel headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they said.
There was no official announcement of his appointment by the government.
His appointment, if made by the government, may trigger a controversy as Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge had boycotted the selection panel's meet on Friday.
The Lokpal Act, which envisages establishment of anti-graft body Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in states to look into cases of corruption against certain categories of public servants, was passed in 2013.

SC refers Ayodhya land dispute case for mediation, gives 8 weeks to panel

The Supreme Court on Friday referred the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation by a panel headed by former apex court judge F M I Kallifulla and gave it eight weeks to complete the process.
The other members of the panel will be spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, said a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The bench directed that the mediation will be held at Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh and the process should start within a week from Friday.
The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, said the panel should file a progress report of the proceedings within four weeks and complete the process within eight weeks.
The apex court said "utmost confidentiality" should be maintained to ensure success of the mediation process and no media, neither print nor electronic, should report the proceedings.
ALSO READ: SC on Ayodhya dispute LIVE updates: Mediation to be held in Faizabad
The panel of mediators can co-opt more members in the team, it said. In case of any difficulty, the chairman will inform the apex court registry about it, it added.
On Wednesday, the bench had reserved the order after hearing various contesting parties.
Hindu bodies, except Nirmohi Akhara, have opposed the apex court's suggestion to refer the issue for mediation, while Muslim bodies have supported it.
The bench had concluded the hearing by asking stakeholders to give the names of possible mediators.
The apex court in its Wednesday hearing observed that the issue is not about 1,500 square feet land, but about religious sentiments.
The bench said it was conscious of the gravity and impact of the issue on "public sentiment" and also on the "body politic of the country".
It said the judges were aware of the history and were seeing that the dispute be resolved amicably. "it is not only about property. it is about mind, heart and healing, if possible," the bench said
The bench also said it was not appropriate to pre-judge that the mediation would fail and people would not agree with the decision.
"We are not concerned what has happened in the past. Don't you think we have read the history. We are not concerned what Babar did in the past or who was the king and who invaded. We cannot undo what has happened but we can go into what exists in the present moment," the bench said when a lawyer contended that injustices were meted out to Hindus by invaders in the past.
ALSO READ: Ayodhya case not just a land dispute, it's a matter of faith, says SC
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the legal heirs of original litigant M Siddiq, said outlining of the dispute is not necessary and the court can order mediation by an mediator, when parties are unable to settle it.
To this, the bench said that there may not be one mediator but a panel of mediators to deal with the issue.
During the hearing, Justice Chandrachud said it would be very difficult to bind millions of people by way of mediation considering it is not just a property dispute between parties but a dispute involving two communities.
Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for Hindu deity Ram Lala Virajman, said, "We are even willing to crowd-fund a mosque somewhere else but no negotiations can take place with respect of Lord Rama's birthplace. Mediation won't serve any purpose," he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said the court should refer the matter for mediation only when there exists an element of settlement.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.