Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the life imprisonment of P. Rajagopal, the owner of south Indian hotel chain <keyword id="188781" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Saravana-Bhavan">Saravana Bhavan</keyword>, for murdering an employee in October 2001 so as to marry his wife. A bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana gave Rajagopal time till July 7 to surrender. The ruling comes on the Madras High Court order upholding his life imprisonment. The High Court had enhanced the 10-year sentence given by a trial court. When contacted, Rajagopal's son P.R. Shivakumar told IANS: "I just got an SMS about the verdict. I have to get more details." The hugely popular hotel chain has outlets within and outside India and is now managed by Shivakumar. The South Indian restaurant chain, Saravana Bhavan has 33 outposts in India and 47 around the world. <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._Rajagopal_%28businessman%29">P. Rajagopal</a>, was sentenced to life in prison in India in 2009 on charges of murdering his employee, Prince Shantakumar, so as to marry his wife. However, India's highest court had granted him a bail in May 2009, when the lawyer of the accused claimed that Rajagopal needed to go through medical treatment for paralysis, reported One India News. He served just 11 months of that sentence. With IANS

Owner Of A Wildly Popular Restaurant Chain Gets Life Term In Murder Case

The Centre on Tuesday again urged the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> to urgently hear the matter connected with the validity of <keyword id="11939755" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="ews" source="Orion">EWS</keyword> quota in postgraduate courses in medical colleges. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, after failing to get the matter listed on Tuesday, requested a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana to list the matter for hearing. Mehta emphasized that the matter needs to be considered on priority since resident doctors are protesting. The Chief Justice told Mehta that he has to constitute a special bench. Justice Ramana said: "Let me see tomorrow. This entire week is a miscellaneous week..." Mehta said the resident doctors are protesting and their concerns are genuine. The bench said: "If it is a three-judge bench matter, then it will be listed before a three-judge bench tomorrow". On Monday, Mehta asked a bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud to advance the hearing on the matter to Tuesday from January 6. The Centre has told the top court that Rs 8 lakh income criterion for determining the EWS is much more stringent than the one for the OBC creamy layer. The Centre has accepted the report of a three-member panel constituted to revisit the EWS criteria. The panel, in its report, said: "Firstly, the EWS's criteria relates to the financial year prior to the year of application whereas the income criterion for the creamy layer in OBC category is applicable to gross annual income for three consecutive years." The panel added, "Secondly, in case of deciding the OBC creamy layer, income from salaries, agriculture and traditional artisanal professions are excluded from the consideration whereas the Rs 8 lakh criteria for EWS includes that from all sources, including farming. So, despite being the same cut-off number, their composition is different and hence, the two cannot be equated". The panel comprised Ajay Bhushan Pandey, former finance secretary; Prof V.K. Malhotra of ICSSR; and Sanjeev Sanyal, principal economic advisor to the government. The panel was set up on November 30. On November 25, the Centre informed the Supreme Court that it has taken a decision to revisit the criteria of Rs 8 lakh annual income limit for EWS criteria and added that a fresh decision will be taken within a period of 4 weeks. On October 21, the Supreme Court had questioned the Centre over adopting the criteria of OBC creamy layer of Rs 8 lakh annual income for granting reservations under the economic weaker section (EWS), despite the latter not suffering from social and educational backwardness. The top court told the Centre's counsel "You just cannot pull out eight lakh from thin air. You are making unequal equal by applying the Rs eight lakh limit". In an affidavit, the Centre had told the Supreme Court that its decision to fix Rs 8 Lakh income limit for OBC and economically weaker section (EWS) is not arbitrary in the <keyword id="6361994" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="neet" source="Orion">NEET</keyword> All India Quota, and it was finalised after considering diverse economic factors in different states. The top court is hearing writ petitions challenging 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and 10 per cent reservation for EWS in all-India Quota seats for postgraduate medical courses. As many as 15 per cent seats in <keyword id="48426" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mbbs" source="Orion">MBBS</keyword> and 50 per cent seats in MS and MD courses are filled through All India Quota from the candidates selected through NEET. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/delhi-resident-doctors-call-off-their-14-day-long-nationwide-strike-over-neet-pg-counselling/articleshow/88612843.cms">Delhi resident doctors call off their 14-day long nationwide strike over NEET-PG counselling</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/education/news/neet-pg-counselling-not-to-commence-till-supreme-court-decides-on-obc-ews-quota-says-centre/articleshow/87253992.cms">NEET-PG counselling not to commence till Supreme Court decides on OBC, EWS quota, says Centre</a>

Supreme Court agrees to hear Centre's plea on EWS quota for NEET-PG admissions

The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday declined to entertain a plea by e-commerce giants <keyword id="18635" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Amazon">Amazon</keyword> and <keyword id="6354742" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Flipkart">Flipkart</keyword>, saying they must face inquiry by Competition Commission of India (CCI) for anti-competitive practices. A bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="2797471" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="N-V-Ramana">N.V. Ramana</keyword> and comprising justices Vineet Saran and Surya Kant said: "Big organizations like you ( Flipkart and Amazon) should volunteer for inquiry... Inquiry has to be conducted." The bench declined to interfere with the orders of the <keyword id="6371973" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="karnataka-high-court">Karnataka High Court</keyword>, which refused to interfere with the preliminary enquiry ordered by the CCI into their alleged anti-competitive practices. The top court emphasized that the CCI inquiry must go on. However, the court accepted the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for extending the time for the companies to reply to CCI. The e-commerce companies had moved the apex court challenging the Karnataka High Court order. The bench said it sees no reason to interfere in the high court order, and seeing that time granted is expiring on 9 August, "we extend it by 4 weeks". On July 23, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the plea by Amazon and Flipkart against a probe initiated by CCI for the alleged violation of competition law. A division bench comprising justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Natraj Rangaswamy passed the order on a batch of appeals moved by the e-commerce companies challenging a June 11 order passed by a single judge of the high court. The bench noted that by no stretch of imagination the inquiry can be quashed at this stage and the appellants shouldn't be afraid of investigation by CCI. The bench said: "In the considered opinion of the court, appeals filed by appellants are devoid of merit and deserved to be dismissed..." Amazon had moved Karnataka High Court against a CCI order which had called for a director general (DG) level investigation into allegations of anti-competitive conduct in the online sale of smartphones on its platform. The Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh (DVM), the informant before the CCI, had alleged predatory pricing, deep discounting, preferential seller listing, and exclusive partnerships, among others, against Amazon and Flipkart. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/amazon-great-freedom-festival-get-last-day-deals-and-discounts/articleshow/85173017.cms">Amazon Great Freedom Festival 2021: Best last day tech deals and offers</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/gadgets/news/vivo-launched-its-y53s-with-64mp-rear-camera-in-india-on-monday/articleshow/85173234.cms">Vivo launched its Y53s with 64MP rear camera in India on Monday</a>

Supreme Court asks Amazon, Flipkart to volunteer for CCI probe

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> will hear SEBIs petition, in an open court, seeking review of its August 5 judgment, which directed the market regulator to share certain documents with Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). A bench headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli said: "Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the submissions advanced in the review petition, we deem it appropriate to allow application for listing of the instant petition in open court. Let this review petition be listed in court on October 12, 2022." <keyword id="35210" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI" source="Orion">SEBI</keyword> has refused to entertain RIL's request to share the privileged documents on the grounds that under the Sebi (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, the accused company has no right to seek information from it. The <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword>, in its judgement, had rejected this stand of the market regulator. RIL had claimed that documents will exonerate it and its promoters from criminal prosecution initiated in a case related to the alleged irregularities in acquisition of its own shares between 1994 and 2000. Last week, a bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna had recused from hearing RIL's petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against SEBI for failing to provide certain documents to the company. On August 5, a bench led by then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana had said: "The approach of SEBI, in failing to disclose the documents, also raises concerns of transparency and fair trial. Opaqueness only propagates prejudice and partiality. Opaqueness is antithetical to transparency." The top court had said the market regulator should show fairness and furnish documents sought by RIL, and SEBI has a duty to act fairly, while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties. RIL filed a contempt petition as SEBI has not shared three documents -- the two legal opinions by former apex court judge B.N. Srikrishna and former ICAI president Y.H. Malegam's report which examined the irregularities. The company claimed SEBI cannot continue to resist the production of these documents and it had also sent a notice to the regulator saying if documents were not received by August 18, then it will establish that SEBI does not want to comply with the apex court's judgment. In 2002, Chartered Accountant S. Gurumurthy filed a complaint with SEBI alleging irregularities by RIL, its associate companies and their directors/promoters, including <keyword id="3820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="mukesh-ambani" source="Orion">Mukesh Ambani</keyword> and his wife, Nita; <keyword id="9171" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="anil-ambani" source="Orion">Anil Ambani</keyword> and his wife, Tina; and 98 others. The complaint cited the issue of two preferential placement of non-convertible debentures in 1994. SEBI had alleged that RIL along with Reliance Petroleum had circuitously funded the acquisition of its own shares in violation of the Sections 77 and 77A of the Companies Act, 1956. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/markets/news/sebi-tightens-disclosure-norms-for-ipo-brings-mutual-fund-transactions-under-the-gambit-of-insider-trading-rules/articleshow/94577801.cms">SEBI tightens disclosure norms for IPOs, brings mutual fund transactions under the gambit of insider trading rules</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/jio-will-launch-5g-for-the-entire-country-by-december-2023-mukesh-ambani/articleshow/94579338.cms">Jio will launch 5G for the entire country by December 2023: Mukesh Ambani</a>

SC to hear SEBI's review petition against RIL on Oct 12

<ul><li><keyword id="53964" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Soli-Sorabjee">Soli Sorabjee</keyword>, the <keyword id="2500151" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Former-Attorney-General-of-India">former Attorney General of India</keyword>, passed away on 30 April at the age of 91 due to complications from COVID-19.</li><li>The Padma Vibhushan awardee is most recognised for his work defending people’s freedom of expression as well as human rights. </li><li>Sorabjee is also one of the few well known names in the profession who have openly opposed lawyers that charge big bucks.</li></ul>Former <keyword id="458351" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Attorney-General-of-India">Attorney General of India</keyword>, Soli Sorabjee, passed away on Friday, at the age of 91 due to COVID-19 related issues. “He will be remembered as a legend who added strength to the pillars of democracy. I pay my deep respects to the departed soul. Condolences to the family, friends and fans,” said the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana. Sorabjee had a career that spanned across seven decades during which he served two terms as the Attorney General, once from 1989 to 1990 and again from 1998 to 2004. “Despite possessing a different political persuasion, Soli [Sorabjee] has steadfastly believed in Voltaire [sic] famous dictum that he would disagree violently with anyone but defend to death that person’s right to disagree with him,” said Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a senior Member of Parliament (MP) and senior advocate in the Supreme Court, in a <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/straight-candid/down-the-memory-lane-reminiscing-soli-sorabjee/?source=app&amp;frmapp=yes">Times of India</a> op-ed. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="Work in the field of human rights and freedom of expression" comment="subhead" text="Work in the field of human rights and freedom of expression">Work in the field of human rights and freedom of expression</cmsannotation> Sorabjee is known for his work in the area of the protection of human rights and freedom of speech — an endeavour that eventually won him the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second-highest civilian honour, in March 2002. “If Soli was forced to choose amongst his many passions, I would guess freedom of speech and press would be his choice. His commitment to it has been unfailing and unflagging, never affected by the vicissitudes of contemporary ambiance or the burdens and exigencies of high office,” noted Singhvi. Sorabjee is also one of the few well known names in the profession who have openly opposed lawyers that charge big bucks. According to him, anyone charging ₹30 to ₹40 lakh is in the business of extortion. "If a man is willing to be robbed, will you be a thief," he <a href="https://www.shiksha.com/law/articles/5-famous-indian-lawyers-and-where-they-studied-blogId-8656">said.</a> The man has many a feather in his cap, including being the chairman of Berlin-based nonprofit organisation Transparency International and the convenor of the Minority Rights Group, in addition to being the <a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/1997/19971020.HRCN814.html">special rapporteur </a>to the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) since 1997. He also worked on the Citizen’s Justice Committee, which represented pro bono — without any legal fees — the victims of 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The champion for freedom of speech and expression also defended the press in many landmark Supreme Court cases revoking censorship orders and bans on publications. The most recent example of this was lawyer and activist <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-holds-prashant-bhushan-guilty-of-contempt-of-court-punishment-to-be-announced-on-august-20/articleshow/77539437.cms">Prashant Bhushan’s case</a>. Before the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-tests-prashant-bhushans-resolve-with-a-1-fine-for-critical-tweets/articleshow/77846880.cms">₹1 verdict</a> came in, Sorabjee felt the apex institution overreacted over a couple of tweets. “The court may at most give a lecture to Prashant (Bhushan) now. Warn him, but not punish him… It is a rather delicate balance to keep,” he told <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/soli-sorabjee-interview-supreme-court-overreacted-in-prashant-bhushan-contempt-case/article32420327.ece?homepage=true">The Hindu. </a> Sorabjee was born on 9 March 1930 and after studying at St. Xavier’s College and the Government Law College in Mumbai, he enrolled at the Bar in 1953. Zora Mody, Sorabjee’s daughter, is also a lawyer and a published author. She wrote the book 10 Judgements that Changed India. Sorabjee also has three granddaughters — Anjali, Aarti and Aditi.

You Searched For "NV Ramana" and got 5 results

Owner Of A Wildly Popular Restaurant Chain Gets Life Term In Murder Case

BI India Bureau

Supreme Court agrees to hear Centre's plea on EWS quota for NEET-PG admissions

IANS

Supreme Court asks Amazon, Flipkart to volunteer for CCI probe

IANS

SC to hear SEBI's review petition against RIL on Oct 12

IANS

Former Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee passes away at 91

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides