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="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

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

<keyword id="144015" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kalanithi-maran" source="Orion">Kalanithi Maran</keyword> and <keyword id="169847" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kal-airways" source="Orion">KAL Airways</keyword> informed the Supreme Court on Monday that <keyword id="6358032" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="spicejet" source="Orion">SpiceJet</keyword>'s offer of ₹600 crore towards full and final settlement of the share transfer dispute was not acceptable. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing KAL Airways, submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana that it was not possible for his clients to consider the offer proposed by SpiceJet airlines. The bench, also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, inquired further whether none of the two offers proposed by SpiceJet was acceptable. Singh replied in the negative and added that as per the arbitral award SpiceJet has to pay them ₹920 crore. Singh also submitted that he could take the court through the calculations as per the arbitral award from the pleadings itself in support of the arguments. He also submitted that the matter may be listed for arguments on the next date of hearing. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing SpiceJet airlines, urged the bench to hear the matter within 2 weeks. Singh was assisted by advocates from Karanjawala &amp; Co. After hearing arguments, the top court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on March 2. On February 10, the Supreme Court asked Kalanithi <keyword id="44006" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="maran" source="Orion">Maran</keyword>, the former promoter of SpiceJet, to consider the full and final settlement offer made by SpiceJet to end the dispute in a share transfer matter. In a statement SpiceJet, after the hearing in the top court, said: "SpiceJet has offered to pay ₹600 crore in cash in the share transfer case with its former promoter Kalanithi Maran and his firm KAL Airways for a full and final settlement of all disputes. Out of the principal amount of ₹578 crore awarded in arbitration, SpiceJet has already paid ₹308 crore in cash and deposited a bank guarantee of ₹270 crore." SpiceJet's counsel had proposed to pay the bank guarantee equivalent amount of ₹270 crore in cash and top it up with additional ₹22 crore aggregating the total pay-out to ₹600 crore as full and final settlement of all disputes between the parties. Maran and his firm, KAL Airways, had urged the top court to lift the stay on a Delhi High Court order asking the low-cost airline to deposit ₹243 crore as interest on the amount of ₹579 crore in the dispute. In November 2020, the top court stayed the high court order. Maran sought the stay to be lifted to secure the decreed amount -- refund amount awarded and interest -- from SpiceJet. Singh had argued that the high court had asked them to pay the decretal amount and against which SpiceJet had deposited only ₹270 crore as bank guarantee and now there is a winding up order passed against SpiceJet by the Madras High Court in another case being Credit Suisse AG Vs SpiceJet. He added that in such a change in circumstance, SpiceJet should be directed to pay and deposit ₹242 crore otherwise his client will have to run from pillar to post. Karanjawala &amp; Co. in a statement said the top court proposed two offers to Maran and KAL Airways that SpiceJet will give ₹300 crore towards full and final settlement of the dispute and the matter finally gets settled and no further litigation. Second, out of the bank guarantee of ₹270 crore deposited with HC, SpiceJet will give ₹100 crore for now and the order will be passed by the top court to hear petitions, which are pending before the high court expeditiously. The top court asked Singh to discuss the settlement with his client. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/sbi-and-icici-bank-lost-over-10000-crore-to-abg-shipyard-bank-fraud/articleshow/89559899.cms">SBI and ICICI Bank investors pay the price for the nearly ₹10,000 crore lost to the biggest bank fraud ever in India</a>

You Searched For "nv ramana" and got 4 results

Supreme Court asks Amazon, Flipkart to volunteer for CCI probe

IANS

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

IANS

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

IANS

Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways reject SpiceJet's ₹600 crore settlement offer

IANS

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides