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 <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> agreed to hear on Friday a plea seeking <keyword id="20286748" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="postponement" source="keywords">postponement</keyword> of the <keyword id="22147879" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NEET-PG" source="keywords">NEET-PG</keyword> examination, scheduled for August 11, which claimed that candidates have been allocated cities that are highly inconvenient for them to reach. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra on Thursday took note of the submissions of lawyer Anas Tanwir on the issue. The bench said the matter will be listed on Friday. The plea said many candidates have been allocated cities which are highly inconvenient for them to reach. It said the test cities were allotted on July 31 and the specific centres will be declared on August 8. While the allocation of the centres was done to curb malpractices, the plea said due to the paucity of time, it is difficult for the candidates to make arrangements for travel to specific cities. "Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus ...the Respondents (<keyword id="19904021" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="National-Testing-Agency" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="National Testing Agency" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="National Testing Agency">National Testing Agency</keyword>) to reschedule the NEET-PG 2024 examination," stated the plea filed by Vishal Soren. The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)-Postgraduate exam was initially supposed to be held on June 23. It was postponed by the Union Health Ministry as a "precautionary measure" in the wake of alleged irregularities in certain competitive exams. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/ola-wants-to-re-enter-the-quick-commerce-business-to-take-on-blinkit-and-swiggy-instamart/articleshow/112364583.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/ola-wants-to-re-enter-the-quick-commerce-business-to-take-on-blinkit-and-swiggy-instamart/articleshow/112364583.cms" target="_blank">Ola wants to re-enter the quick commerce business to take on Blinkit and Swiggy Instamart</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/rbi-mpc-meet-cheque-clearing-time-reduced-upi-limit-increased-for-tax-payment/articleshow/112366099.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/rbi-mpc-meet-cheque-clearing-time-reduced-upi-limit-increased-for-tax-payment/articleshow/112366099.cms" target="_blank">RBI MPC meet – Cheque clearing time reduced, UPI limit increased for tax payment</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/tata-curvv-ev-with-up-to-585-km-range-launched-starting-at-17-49-lakh/slidelist/112342769.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/tata-curvv-ev-with-up-to-585-km-range-launched-starting-at-17-49-lakh/slidelist/112342769.cms" target="_blank">Tata Curvv EV with up to 585 km range launched starting at ₹17.49 lakh</a>

Supreme Court to hear plea seeking postponement of NEET-PG on Friday

New Delhi: The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Wednesday said it will hear on September 17 the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nclat" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm BYJU's and approved its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="bcci" source="keywords">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by a battery of lawyers that the plea be heard urgently keeping in mind the subsequent developments in the case. The plea was mentioned by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. The submission was supported by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BCCI, and senior lawyer Abhishek Singhvi, also appearing for the ed-tech firm. Kaul said another plea in the case has also been filed and that is listed for hearing on September 17 and hence, the present plea be either heard on that day or the hearings in both the cases be advanced to this Friday. "We will hear both the pleas on September 17," the CJI said. Senior advocate Shayam Divan, appearing for the US-based creditor, said let the matters be heard together on September 17. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the <keyword id="19902197" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="national-company-law-tribunal" source="keywords">National Company Law Tribunal</keyword> (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's.

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday deferred by six weeks hearing on a plea of Chief Minister <keyword id="19901384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arvind-Kejriwal" source="keywords">Arvind Kejriwal</keyword> challenging a <keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords">Delhi High Court</keyword> order upholding the summons issued to him in a criminal <keyword id="19917023" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="defamation-case" source="keywords">defamation case</keyword> for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber <keyword id="21917603" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dhruv-Rathee" source="keywords">Dhruv Rathee</keyword> in 2018. A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan posted the matter for hearing after six weeks after senior <keyword id="22757218" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="advocate-Abhishek-Singhvi" source="Orion">advocate Abhishek Singhvi</keyword>, appearing for <keyword id="19895701" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kejriwal" source="keywords">Kejriwal</keyword>, sought some more time to work out a settlement. "We express regret but some more time may be given (for settlement). Currently, too many things are going on in this man's life," Singhvi submitted. Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for the complainant, submitted that time may be given (to Kejriwal) but it should not be unlimited and some negotiations have to take place. Singhvi submitted that although he (Kejriwal) expresses regret for the tweet but it cannot be on his (complainant's) terms. The bench posted the matter for hearing after six weeks to enable the parties reach a settlement. Earlier, Kejriwal has admitted that he "committed a mistake" by retweeting the alleged defamatory video. On March 11, the top court asked Kejriwal whether he wanted to give an apology to the complainant in the matter. Kejriwal had on February 26 told the apex court that he made a mistake by retweeting the allegedly defamatory video related to the <keyword id="20738764" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP-IT-Cell" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP IT Cell" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BJP IT Cell">BJP IT Cell</keyword>. The counsel appearing for complainant Vikas Sankrityayan had told the top court that Kejriwal may issue an apology on social media platforms like microblogging platform 'X' or Instagram. On February 26, the apex court, without issuing notice on Kejriwal's plea challenging the high court order, had asked the complainant whether he wanted to close the matter in view of the petitioner accepting it was a mistake. The top court had asked the trial court not to take up the defamation case involving Kejriwal till further orders. In its February 5 verdict, the high court said that reposting alleged libellous content would attract the defamation law. It said a sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge and added that retweeting defamatory content must invite penal, civil as well as tort action if the person retweeting it does not attach a disclaimer. The high court, while refusing to quash the trial court's 2019 order summoning Kejriwal, had said when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone's ears. It had said if the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused as it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse it and conveniently take a plea that they had merely retweeted a content. The chief minister had said in the high court that the trial court failed to appreciate that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm the complainant. Sankrityayan claimed the YouTube video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part II' was circulated by Rathee, who lives in Germany, "wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made".

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday said it has ordered listing of a plea challenging the verdict of the <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords">Bombay High Court</keyword> which had upheld a decision of a Mumbai college to impose a ban on wearing of 'hijab', 'burqa' and 'naqab' inside the campus. The high court had on June 26 refused to interfere with the decision of the <keyword id="22185170" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="chembur-trombay-education" source="keywords">Chembur Trombay Education</keyword> Society's N G Acharya and <keyword id="22271323" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="d-k-marathe-college" source="keywords">D K Marathe College</keyword> imposing the ban, saying such rules do not violate students' <keyword id="20068423" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="fundamental-rights" source="keywords">fundamental rights</keyword>. It had said a <keyword id="42035" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="dress-code" source="Orion">dress code</keyword> is meant to maintain discipline which is part of the college's fundamental right to "establish and administer an educational institution". Taking note of submission seeking urgent listing of the appeal, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said it has already assigned a bench for the matter and that it would be listed soon. Lawyer Abiha Zaidi, appearing for petitioners, including Zainab Abdul Qayyum, sought urgent hearing saying the unit tests in the college are likely to commence on Wednesday. The top court is yet to conclusively decide the legality of such diktats issued by educational institutions. A two-judge bench of the top court, on October 13, 2022, had delivered opposing verdicts in the hijab controversy emanating from Karnataka. The then BJP-led state government had imposed a ban on wearing the Islamic head covering in schools there. While Justice Hemant Gupta, since retired, had dismissed the appeals challenging the judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to lift the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia had held there shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state. The present controversy stems from the decision of a Mumbai college. The Bombay High Court trashed the plea against the ban and said the dress code was applicable to all students irrespective of religion or caste. The students, who were in the second and third year of the science degree course, had moved the high court, challenging a directive issued by the college imposing a dress code under which students cannot wear a hijab, naqab, burka, stoles, caps and badges on the premises. The students had claimed it was against their fundamental right to practice religion, the right to privacy and right to choice. The college's action was "arbitrary, unreasonable, bad-in-law and perverse", the plea had said. The high court, however, had said it could not see how the prescription of dress code by the college violated Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 25 (freedom to practice religion) of the Constitution. "In our view, the dress code as prescribed cannot be held to violate the petitioners' rights claimed under Article 19(1) (a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India," the HC had said. The high court had also refused to accept the petitioners' contention that wearing a hijab, naqab and burqa was an essential practice of their religion. "Except for stating that the same constitutes an essential religious practice on the basis of the English translation of Kanz-ul-Iman and Suman Abu Dawud, there is no material placed to uphold the petitioners' contention that donning of hijab and naqab is an essential religious practice. The contention in that regard, therefore, fails," the HC had said. Prescribing a dress code should be seen as an "exercise towards maintaining discipline", and the right to do so flows from the fundamental right to establish and administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession or run trade/business) and Article 26 of the Constitution, the HC had said. The dress code was mandatory only within the college premises and the petitioners' freedom of choice and expression was not otherwise affected, it had said.

Supreme Court to hear plea of students against Bombay HC verdict upholding ban on hijab, burqa in college

The <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi party</keyword> is set to announce the new <keyword id="19919270" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Delhi-Chief-Minister" source="keywords">Delhi Chief Minister</keyword> by 12 pm today after the party's legislative meeting in the national capital. According to the Aam Aadmi Party, the meeting will be held at the Chief Minister's residence today. Following this, <keyword id="19901384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arvind-Kejriwal" source="keywords">Arvind Kejriwal</keyword> will meet the <keyword id="20976840" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lieutenant-Governor-VK-Saxena" source="keywords">Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena</keyword> at 4:30 p.m. today and the newly chosen leader of the legislative party will simultaneously stake a claim for the post of Chief Minister. Delhi Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj remained tight-lipped about who will succeed Arvind <keyword id="19895701" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kejriwal" source="keywords">Kejriwal</keyword> as Chief Minister, stating only that the successor could be either a current minister or an MLA. "It does not matter who sits on the CM chair because the mandate was for Arvind Kejriwal. The public chose Arvind Kejriwal. He has said that he will not sit on the CM chair until the people ask again but the chair belongs to Arvind Kejriwal for these and the next 5 years... One of us will sit on the chair until the elections take place. It will be similar to the way Bharat ruled in the absence of Lord Ram," Bharadwaj said. On being asked who will replace Arvind Kejriwal, Bharadwaj said, "It can be an MLA or any present minister. There will be a discussion with the MLAs today and the name may be decided". Kejriwal announced on Sunday that he would resign and would not resume the CM's post until the people of Delhi declared him "honest." He has also called for advancing polls in the national capital to November this year, ahead of the scheduled February elections. Kejriwal stated that if re-elected by the public, it would serve as a "certificate" of his honesty. He added that he would push for early elections, alongside those in Maharashtra. The announcement by the 54-year-old leader came two days after he was released from the <keyword id="20147871" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Tihar-jail" source="keywords">Tihar jail</keyword> after being granted bail by the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> in a corruption case related to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy scam. The apex court also imposed certain conditions on Kejriwal's release, including that he must refrain from making public comments about the case and must attend all hearings before the trial court unless exempted.

AAP to announce New Delhi CM's name at 12 noon today

Expanding the scope of its hearing in the <keyword id="19980518" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Patanjali" source="keywords">Patanjali</keyword> Ayurved case, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="266" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday took a stern view of <keyword id="20610549" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="misleading-advertisements" source="keywords">misleading advertisements</keyword> by FMCG firms and asked three Union ministries to inform it about the steps they have taken to curb the practice which takes "public for a ride" and adversely affects their health. The court passed the order after Yoga guru Ramdev and his aide Balkrishna of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. told a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah that they have issued unqualified public apology in as many as 67 newspapers over misleading advertisements and are willing to issue additional advertisements expressing their contrition. The bench said the public apology published in newspapers were not on record and asked those to be filed within two days. It posted the matter for April 30 for further consideration. While hearing the Patanjali case, the apex court said the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Consumer Protection Act and the related rules also needed a closer examination. It said the issue was not limited to Patanjali but extended to all Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) firms which have been issuing "misleading advertisements and taking the public for a ride, in particular affecting the health of babies, school-going children and senior citizens who have been consuming products on the basis of the said misrepresentation". "We must clarify that we are not here to gun for a particular party or a particular agency or a particular authority. This is a PIL, and in the larger interest of the consumers, public should know which way they are going and how and why they can be misled, and how authorities are acting to prevent it," the bench said. The court asked the Union ministries of consumer affairs, information and broadcasting, and information technology to explain what action they have taken to prevent the misuse of consumer laws. It also sought an explanation from the Centre over an August 2023 letter issued by the Ministry of Ayush to the licencing authorities of all states and Union Territories and drug controllers of Ayush asking them to not initiate any action under rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The bench also asked the <keyword id="20083252" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Medical-Association" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Indian Medical Association" meta.hostid="266" meta.entityid="Indian Medical Association">Indian Medical Association</keyword> (IMA), the petitioner in the Patanjali advertisements case, to "put its house in order". It said several complaints have been made about alleged unethical acts by members of the IMA who prescribe highly expensive medicines and line of treatment. The bench also ordered impleading the National Medical Commission (NMC) as a respondent in the matter for effective assistance to the court. At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd managing director Balkrishna, told the bench they have issued on Monday unqualified apology for the "lapses" on their part. "Where? Why it is not filed?" the bench asked. Rohatgi said it was issued on Monday in 67 newspapers across the country. When the court asked the senior advocate why did the respondents wait for a whole week before publishing the public apology, Rohatgi said, "Its language had to be changed". The court also quizzed him about the size of advertisements. "Is it the same size of advertisements that you normally issue in newspapers?" it asked Rohatgi, who submitted "It costs tens of lakhs (of rupees)". The bench ordered that the apology published be filed on record and added it wanted to see the actual advertisement published in newspapers. "The said advertisements are not on record. It is submitted that the same have been collated and shall be filed in the course of the day with copies to counsel for the parties. Needful shall be done within two days with copies to counsel for the parties," it said. The counsel said additional advertisement shall be issued by Ramdev and Balkrishna tendering unqualified apology for the lapses on their part. The bench said it was necessary to implead the three central ministries in order to examine the steps taken to prevent the abuse of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act and rules, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Consumer Protection Act. It said these ministries shall file affidavits enunciating the action they have taken to prevent the misuse/abuse of these statutes along with the relevant data since 2018. The bench said licencing authorities of all states and UTs shall also be impleaded as co-respondents in the matter. The bench told the IMA's counsel that while they are pointing fingers at Patanjali, "the other four fingers are also pointing at you (IMA)". On April 16, the apex court had warned Ramdev and Balkrishna against any attempt to "degrade allopathy" and permitted them to tender a "public apology and show contrition" within a week in the contempt proceedings in the misleading advertisements case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The apex court is hearing a plea filed in 2022 by the IMA alleging a smear campaign against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine. Ramdev and Balkrishna had earlier tendered an "unconditional and unqualified apology" before the top court over advertisements issued by the firm making tall claims about the medicinal efficacy of its products. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/google-pixel-8a-may-be-more-expensive-than-its-predecessor-as-per-a-new-leak/articleshow/109499394.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/google-pixel-8a-may-be-more-expensive-than-its-predecessor-as-per-a-new-leak/articleshow/109499394.cms" target="_blank">Google Pixel 8a may be more expensive than its predecessor, as per a new leak</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/best-smartphones-under-25000-in-india/slidelist/109529634.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/best-smartphones-under-25000-in-india/slidelist/109529634.cms" target="_blank">Best smartphones under ₹25,000 in India</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/sports/webstories/at-17-indian-chess-prodigy-d-gukesh-becomes-youngest-challenger-for-world-championship/slidelist/109492021.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/sports/webstories/at-17-indian-chess-prodigy-d-gukesh-becomes-youngest-challenger-for-world-championship/slidelist/109492021.cms" target="_blank">At 17, Indian chess prodigy D Gukesh becomes youngest challenger for World Championship</a>

Supreme Court expands Patanjali misleading ads hearing to include FMCG companies

The <keyword id="19946148" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Karnataka-High-Court" source="keywords">Karnataka High Court</keyword> recently dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking Rs 6 lakhs in monthly <keyword id="20538992" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="alimony" source="keywords">alimony</keyword>, citing the lack of reasonable justification for the requested amount. <keyword id="22894144" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Lalitha-Kanneganti" source="keywords">Justice Lalitha Kanneganti</keyword>, presiding over the case, found the petitioner's claim to be excessive and asked for more concrete figures regarding her actual expenses. The appeal, presented by Advocate Akarsh Kanade on behalf of the petitioner, sought the large sum to cover what was described as her “basic needs,” which included items such as bangles, chains, sandals, and watches. The court questioned whether such expenses constituted "basic needs" and noted that the petitioner did not have any dependents or children. <div type="twitter" handle="DeepikaBhardwaj" handlename="DeepikaBhardwaj" favoritecount="0" retweetcount="0" id="1826237815962907135"></div>According to the Bar and Bench, the court said that she has no responsibility for any other family member or children, “Does anybody spend this much? A single lady for herself?” During the hearing, the petitioner referenced her ex-husband’s preference for branded clothing, such as Calvin Klein t-shirts costing around Rs 10,000, arguing that she should be entitled to similar living standards. Additionally, she cited health concerns, including knee joint pain and fever, which she attributed to negligence during the marriage. Further, Judge Lalitha Kanneganti also refused to entertain the request, saying, “If she wants to spend, let her earn,” TOI reported. <h2>But how much alimony is considered fair in India?</h2>In India, alimony, also referred to as <keyword id="20027249" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="maintenance" source="keywords">maintenance</keyword>, is a key aspect of <keyword id="19911325" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="divorce" source="keywords">divorce</keyword> proceedings. This <keyword id="19972877" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="financial-support" source="keywords">financial support</keyword> is provided by one spouse to another, irrespective of the divorce grounds. The determination of alimony involves complex legal and financial assessments, taking into account factors such as the earning capacity of both spouses, their financial needs, the length of the marriage, and the lifestyle maintained during the marriage. The <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court-of-india" source="keywords">Supreme Court of India</keyword> has set a general benchmark for monthly alimony, where the husband may be required to pay 25% of his net salary to his estranged wife. While this guideline applies to monthly payouts, no specific rule exists for lump-sum settlements, though they typically range from one-fifth to one-third of the spouse's net worth. The calculation of alimony depends on various factors, such as: <ul><li>Monthly incomes of both spouses</li><li>Educational background and employment prospects</li><li>Duration of the marriage</li><li>Number of children and child custody arrangements</li><li>Husband's income, liabilities, and lifestyle</li><li>Reasonable needs and financial independence of the wife</li></ul>In case of the Karnataka woman, the court expressed its expectation that more reasonable figures be provided to support her request. "If you want an order from the court, I want actual figures, not these lakhs of figures," said Justice Kanneganti. The judge also stated that the court is not a place for bargaining and advised the petitioner to be realistic in her demands. While the petitioner’s counsel attempted to lower the alimony request, the court maintained that without a rational basis for the amount, the application could not be entertained. Justice Kanneganti emphasised that the appeal would be dismissed if a more reasonable claim was not presented. In its final remarks, the court suggested that the appeal could be denied solely on the grounds of being unreasonable, stressing the importance of presenting justified and fact-based requests in legal proceedings. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="112689204" title="Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck reportedly didn&amp;#39;t sign a prenup. Here are the assets they may have to split 50/50 in their divorce settlement." mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday agreed to list for an early hearing the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NCLAT" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed <keyword id="19965539" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="insolvency-proceedings" source="keywords">insolvency proceedings</keyword> against ed-tech firm <keyword id="19958178" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Byjus" source="keywords">BYJU's</keyword> and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BCCI" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BCCI" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BCCI">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. Kaul said, "The only funding was done by the promoters and today no one has brought any external borrowing. We have to show today how malafide the petition (of US firm) is." "I will get it listed as early as possible," the CJI, who was indisposed and in quarantine for the last few days, said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the US-based creditor, said it also wanted an early hearing. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/india-beats-the-us-to-emerge-as-the-second-biggest-market-for-5g-smartphones/articleshow/113095322.cms">India beats the US to emerge as the second-biggest market for 5G smartphones</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/apple-iphone-16-to-launch-on-september-9-design-specs-and-everything-we-know-so-far/articleshow/113091114.cms">Apple iPhone 16 to launch on September 9 – design, specs and everything we know so far</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/webstories/shree-tirupati-balajee-agro-trading-ipo-price-band-to-risk-factors-all-you-need-to-know/slidelist/113082663.cms">Shree Tirupati Balajee Agro Trading IPO – Price band to risk factors, all you need to know</a>

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

In a major setback to Delhi's <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi Party</keyword> government, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday ruled that the law "expressly enables" the lieutenant governor to nominate <keyword id="22669982" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="aldermen" source="keywords">aldermen</keyword> to the <keyword id="19900879" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mcd" source="keywords">MCD</keyword> and he is not bound by the advice of the council of ministers in the matter. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala rejected the <keyword id="19925995" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-government" source="keywords">Delhi government</keyword>'s plea challenging the LG's power to nominate 10 aldermen in the <keyword id="19907640" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Municipal-Corporation-of-Delhi" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Municipal Corporation of Delhi" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Municipal Corporation of Delhi">Municipal Corporation of Delhi</keyword> without the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The apex court pronounced its verdict on the Delhi government's plea after reserving it for nearly 15 months. In its ruling impacting the fraught relationship between the LG's office and the AAP-led Delhi government, the bench said the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as amended in 1993 "expressly enables the LG to nominate persons having special knowledge to the corporation". It said the power expressed by the statute in the name of the LG, also seen in the context of other provisions, demonstrates the statutory scheme in which the powers and duties are distributed among authorities under the Act. "The context in which the power is located confirms that the LG is intended to act as per the mandate of the statute and not guided by the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The power to be exercised is the statutory duty of the LG and not the executive power of the state. This is how we analysed the constitutional provisions," Justice Narasimha said while pronouncing the verdict on behalf of the bench. The bench said the statutory power under provision 3(3)(b)(1) which deals with nomination of persons having special knowledge was vested with the LG for the first time by the 1993 amendment of the DMC Act of 1957. The bench said the DMC Act as amended in 1993 recognises five authorities exercising the state's power and duties under the Act -- these are the Central government, the government of NCT, administrator, corporation and the commissioner. It said the amendment Act of 1993 carries out several amendments to the original DMC Act of 1957 by which the power, duties were allocated to the authorities depending on the function they perform under the law. The bench said by way of the amendment the power of nomination of aldermen was given to LG under the provision just like the power of nomination of MLAs was given to the speaker of the House. On May 17 last year, the top court had said that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen to the MCD will mean he can destabilise an elected civic body. The MCD has 250 elected and 10 nominated members. In December 2022, the Aam Aadmi Party defeated the <keyword id="19894848" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="BJP">BJP</keyword> in the civic elections, winning 134 wards and ending the saffron party's 15-year run at the helm of the MCD. The BJP won 104 seats and the Congress finished a distant third with nine. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, had contended during the hearing that no separate powers have been accorded to the state government to nominate people to the MCD. For the past 30 years, the practice of the LG nominating aldermen on the aid and advice of the city government has been followed, he said. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the LG's office, submitted that just because a practice has been followed for 30 years does not mean it is correct. The top court had observed that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen will effectively mean that he can destabilise a democratically elected MCD because these aldermen get appointed to the standing committees and have voting power. Earlier, the top court had questioned the "source of power" of the LG under the Constitution and the law to nominate aldermen to the MCD without the aid and advice of the elected government. On May 12 last year, the top court observed that LG has to act on the "aid and advice" of the council of ministers of the Delhi government in nominating 10 aldermen to the MCD.

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court will hear Trump's immunity claims in his federal election interference case.</li><li>Special counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump cannot proceed until the court rules.</li></ul>The Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-wont-fast-track-case-donald-trump-immunity-2023-12">claim presidential immunity</a> in his federal election interference case, further delaying the high-stakes case.In a brief order published this week, the top court said it would hear arguments the week of April 22 and issue a ruling on Trump's immunity claim.Special counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump cannot proceed until the Supreme Court makes its decision, which could take months. If the court rules against Trump's immunity claims, an eventual trial in the matter would likely coincide with the height of election season. If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump's arguments, the charges against him would be dropped. Trump's legal team has argued that he had total immunity for actions he took while president, likening his questions about the 2020 election results to his official duties. A Washington, DC, appeals court panel ruled earlier this month that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/appeals-court-ruling-trump-immunity-jack-smith-election-interference-case-2024-1">Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution</a> in the case. Trump's team, however, quickly appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.Trump faces four federal counts in the case related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The former president is <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-criminal-cases-ranked-how-much-legal-trouble-2023-8">facing three additional criminal cases</a>, including a New York State hush-money case, a Georgia state election interference case, and another Smith-led federal case over Trump's handling of classified documents. The Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month in another Trump-related matter over whether the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/everything-need-know-trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot-case-2024-2">GOP front-runner could be disqualified from the ballot</a> because of language in the 14th Amendment that bars elected officials from participating in insurrection.

You Searched For "Supreme Court hearing" and got 10 results

Supreme Court to hear plea seeking postponement of NEET-PG on Friday

PTI

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

PTI

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

PTI

Supreme Court to hear plea of students against Bombay HC verdict upholding ban on hijab, burqa in college

PTI

AAP to announce New Delhi CM's name at 12 noon today

ANI

Supreme Court expands Patanjali misleading ads hearing to include FMCG companies

PTI

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

BI India Bureau

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

PTI

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

PTI

The Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump's presidential immunity claim

Erin Snodgrass

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides