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

<keyword id="19903807" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Elon-Musk" source="keywords">Elon Musk</keyword>'s satellite internet service, <keyword id="20034452" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Starlink" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Starlink" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Starlink">Starlink</keyword>, has announced that it will block access to the billionaire's social media platform, <keyword id="19959117" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="X" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="X" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="X">X</keyword>, in <keyword id="19935367" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Brazil" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Brazil" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Brazil">Brazil</keyword> in compliance with a recent ruling by the country's <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>. The decision comes after Brazil's top court ordered a nationwide ban on the platform. In a post on X on September 3, Starlink stated, "The Starlink team is doing everything possible to keep you connected. Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil." The company also noted that it is actively pursuing legal options to challenge the court's decision, which they argue violates the Brazilian constitution. The conflict began when Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the freezing of Starlink's financial transactions after Musk's company failed to meet a court-imposed deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country. On September 2, all five judges of Brazil's Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ban on X, reinforcing the need for compliance with the nation's legal requirements. Starlink had initiated legal action to contest the order, calling it "illegal," but the court's decision to block access to X remains in effect. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his approval of the Supreme Court's ruling in an interview with CNN Brasil, stating that he was "satisfied" with the decision and that it sends a clear message about the rule of law. The situation escalated after Judge Moraes issued a directive on August 29, giving Musk 24 hours to appoint a legal representative for X in Brazil or face the suspension of the platform across the country. Starlink's compliance with the court's order to block access to X underscores the ongoing legal and regulatory challenges Musk's companies face in Brazil.

Elon Musk's Starlink says it will block X in Brazil after court order

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The US Supreme Court heard Nvidia's arguments against a class action securities fraud lawsuit.</li><li>Nvidia is accused of misleading shareholders about cryptocurrency mining-related sales.</li></ul>The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case in which <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-ceo-ai-employees-workers-2024-11">Nvidia</a> is trying to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders. But some of the justices expressed concern over the chip giant's assertions.Nvidia petitioned the nation's highest court after a lower court permitted a 2018 class action lawsuit alleging that the company and its CEO <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-huang-softbank-masayoshi-son-tech-stock-buyout-ai-microchips-2024-11">Jensen Huang</a> misled investors about its cryptocurrency mining-related sales to move ahead.Attorneys for Nvidia argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, led by a Swedish investment management firm, have not met the stricter pleading standards laid out by the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to allow the lawsuit to proceed "creates an easy road map for plaintiffs to evade the Reform Act," Nvidia attorney Neal Katyal argued before the justices.The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act or PSLRA was designed, in part, to curtail frivolous securities lawsuits."When a stock drops, all they have to do is find an expert with numbers that contradict the company's public statements, then allege the company keeps records that executives look at, and then argue those records would have matched the hired expert's numbers," said Katyal, who argued that the plaintiff's complaint relies on expert opinion and lacks company documents.When asked by Justice Clarence Thomas what the plaintiff's complaint would look like in order to comply with the PSLRA, Katyal said it would have to answer "what did the CEO know" and "when did he know it.""I guess my concern is that you appear to be requiring for plaintiffs to actually have the evidence in order to plead their case," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, adding, "part of my concern is that you seem to be wanting a bright line that says the contents of the documents are necessary."Justice Sonia Sotomayer said that she was "concerned" by Nvidia's petition to the court and told Katyal, "We often don't grant cert to error correct.""I'm not actually sure what rule we could articulate that would be clearer than our cases already say," Sotomayer said.Chief Justice John Roberts said the aspect that concerned him about both sides' arguments was that it was "a little black and white.""If I think that the positions on both sides are a little too absolute, how do you find sort of the sweet spot in terms of when the PSLRA is satisfied?" Roberts asked."It can't be just a little bit of direct evidence because that statute was intended to do something," Roberts said. "On the other hand, it seems to me, you can't insist on only the direct evidence before a complaint goes forward. So if I don't think it's black and white, how do I decide where the balance is?"A Nvidia spokesperson told BI the company "appreciated the opportunity to answer the Court's detailed questions this morning. We brought this case to the Supreme Court to protect shareholders and the economy from groundless lawsuits, and look forward to the Court's resolution of this matter."In his arguments, Deepak Gupta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the PSLRA "demands particularity.""Everyone agrees you can't circumvent the statute with conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated expert opinions," Gupta said."But that's not what happened here," said Gupta. "On falsity, the Court of Appeals holding expressly rested on a combination of facts showing that a substantial part of gaming revenues came from crypto."This included accounts from former employees, detailed accounts of internal data and meetings, expert analysis, and "Huang's eventual acknowledgment of the crypto hangover, which sent the stock tumbling 28%," said Gupta.A district court previously dismissed the plaintiffs' class action lawsuit and the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision.The plaintiffs allege in their brief to the Supreme Court that in 2017 when Nvidia's sales of graphic processing units (GPUs) were surging, the company and Huang "knew those record sales were due in substantial part to demand from cryptocurrency miners.""But for more than a year, Huang denied that mining-related sales were driving NVIDIA's revenue growth because he knew that the securities market looked askew at GPU sales to miners, which are notoriously cyclical," the brief says."Huang's strategy fell apart in late 2018, when cryptocurrency prices collapsed, GPU purchases by miners withered, and demand for GeForce GPUs shrank dramatically," the brief says. "NVIDIA then finally admitted that — contrary to Huang's previous denials—its record revenue growth had been largely due to mining-related demand for GeForce GPUs."Nvidia's attorneys argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that on public calls with investors, company executives "made clear that they believed crypto miners were buying both GeForce GPUs and Crypto SKUs.""This case aptly demonstrates the danger of allowing plaintiffs to guess at the pleading stage what internal company reports could have said," the petition says. "Plaintiffs speculate that internal NVIDIA sales reports would have reflected the amount of gaming segment revenue driven by sales to miners rather than to gamers."It adds, "But there is no basis in Plaintiffs' allegations to assume that this information was available to NVIDIA."In 2022, Nvidia agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $5.5 million to settle charges for "inadequate disclosures" regarding the impact of crypto mining on the company's gaming business. Nvidia agreed to pay the penalty without admitting or denying the SEC's findings.A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by June.

Some Supreme Court justices scrutinized Nvidia's attempt to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit

<ul class="summary-list"><li>X mistakenly transferred $5 million in fines to the wrong bank, said Brazil's Supreme Court.</li><li>The court demanded a correct payment before X's ban can be lifted nationwide.</li></ul><a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk">Elon Musk's</a> X just botched a $5 million payment in Brazil by transferring it to the wrong bank, according to Brazil's Supreme Court, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-x-seek-resumption-brazil-service-fines-paid-sources-say-2024-10-04/">Reuters</a> reported on Saturday.This payment issue is the latest in a string of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-brazil-x-ban-feud-content-moderation-free-speech-2024-9">complications</a> in Brazil for the company formerly known as Twitter.In late August, Brazil's Supreme Court banned the platform for failing to comply with orders related to content moderation and for not appointing a legal representative in the country.The social media platform was also slapped with a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-x-hit-with-last-fine-before-reinstatement-brazil-2024-9">$5.2 million fine</a>.On Friday, X's legal team submitted documents showing that they paid the fines. But the court said that the money had been sent to the wrong bank, Reuters reported. The court said that the money must be redirected to the correct account before it can consider lifting X's ban in Brazil.The company's lawyers maintain that the company has correctly paid the fines, Reuters reported, which is the last hurdle the company has to overcome before being allowed to resume operations in Brazil.Brazil was one of X's key markets, with around 21.5 million users, making it the sixth-largest user base for the platform, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/x-asks-brazils-top-court-allow-it-resume-services-source-says-2024-09-26/#:~:text=Brazil%20was%20X's%20sixth%2Dbiggest,with%20about%2021.5%20million%20users.">Reuters</a> reported last month.The platform's legal troubles in the country have stirred <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-fight-free-speech-france-brazil-2024-9">tensions</a> over issues of free speech between Musk and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who was overseeing the case.Musk, who positioned himself as a defender of free speech, clashed with the court over what he saw as an overreach, refused to comply with content removal orders, and launched personal attacks on de Moraes.De Moraes responded by banning the platform in Brazil, issuing additional fines, and threatening to arrest X's legal representatives.X and the Brazil Supreme Court did not respond to requests for comment sent by Business Insider outside business hours.X's apparent payment blunder isn't the first of its kind — or anywhere near the largest. In 2020, Citigroup <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/citibank-revlon-loan-900-million-mistake-payment-how-it-happened-2021-2">accidentally sent</a> $900 million to Revlon's creditors. The bank spent the next two years in litigation trying to recover the funds, with 10 lenders refusing to return the amount, saying that they believed they were owed the money.

Musk's X paid $5 million in fines to the wrong bank, Brazil's Supreme Court said

<ul class="summary-list"><li>House Speaker Mike Johnson criticized Biden's Supreme Court reform proposal as 'dead on arrival.'</li><li>Biden's plan includes term limits, a binding code of conduct, and no immunity for ex-presidents.</li></ul>Joe Biden's pitch to reform the Supreme Court is off to a rough start.House Speaker Mike Johnson has already sworn to fight the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-aims-rein-in-supreme-court-saying-its-gone-rogue-2024-7#:~:text=Biden%20has%20proposed%20a%20radical,a%20conservative%2Dleaning%20court%20composition.">Biden administration's proposal to rein in the Supreme Court</a>, calling it "dead on arrival."President Joe Biden's proposal, announced in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/">White House press release</a> on Monday, calls on Congress to make three major changes to the high court: setting up 18-year term limits for all justices of the court, a binding code of conduct for those justices, and approving a constitutional amendment that explicitly says former presidents aren't immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office.Citing "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-ethics-questions-hanging-over-the-supreme-court-2023-5">recent ethics scandals</a>" among the court's justices and the court's recent decisions overturning "long-established legal precedents protecting fundamental rights," Biden wrote that these reforms are necessary to "restore trust and accountability" in both the President and the Supreme Court.The Court has been a source of frustration for Democrats, with the conservative-led court handing former President Donald Trump and his allies victory after victory — culminating in a decision that ruled sitting presidents are granted presumptive immunity from prosecution.That ruling snarled the various criminal cases against Trump, who was convicted of fraud in New York and faces allegations of mishandling classified documents and conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.The Supreme Court's two arch-conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have also been tied up in scandals. Thomas took lavish gifts and vacations from a GOP mega-donor without disclosing them and his wife communicated to Trump aides before the Capitol riot. Meanwhile, a flag bearing symbols linked to pro-Trump movements flew over Alito's house around the time of the riot; he's since blamed his wife. Despite the push from Biden for changes to the court, Johnson threw cold water on the idea immediately."President Biden's proposal to radically overhaul the U.S. Supreme Court would tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people's faith in our system of justice," <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1817938406049296725">Johnson wrote on X</a> on Monday.He continued: "It is telling that Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the Court's recent decisions. This dangerous gambit of the Biden-Harris Administration is dead on arrival in the House."<h2 id="d2e246d1-a45e-45f6-bb30-a719be625766">Amendment on presidential immunity</h2>Biden's plan includes adding a "No One is Above the Law" amendment to the Constitution, which would dictate that no president has "immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President," according to the press release.But amending the constitution isn't easy; it's only been done 27 times, the last time of which was in 1992.There are a few <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20founders%20also%20specified%20a,making%20amendments%20is%20quite%20onerous.">ways to propose a change to the constitution</a> that the Founding Fathers outlined. The first requires two-thirds support from members of both the House and Senate — a feat that would be near impossible to accomplish with Republicans controlling the House.The GOP has largely supported the Supreme Court's conservative majority, and has rebuked Democrats' attempts to limit its power.The second option requires two-thirds of state legislatures to call a convention to propose a change to the constitution.And that's just to get the amendment proposed — in order to get it ratified, three-fourths of state legislatures must support the amendment.This would also be a tough task with 23 states controlled by Republican trifectas (meaning the GOP runs both state legislatures and the governor's office) and 10 states having divided governments; only 17 states are controlled by Democratic trifectas, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas">according to Ballotpedia</a>.<h2 id="43d2ba31-3402-49c8-9577-c9bf341d2138">Term limits and a new code of conduct</h2>Biden's plan for the Supreme Court includes term limits that would mean a new justice was chosen every two years. In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Biden wrote that, "Term limits would help ensure that the court's membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come."Biden also argued in The Post that "the court's current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced," and that a binding, enforceable code of conduct should require justices "to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest."The <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ethics-rules-missing-word-should-shall-2023-11">court's current ethics code</a>, implemented in November, is not binding and does not contain any enforcement mechanism.Proposing both term limits and a stricter ethics code for justices would require the Republican-controlled House to not only allow a floor vote on the issue, but also to then pass it. Even if the House approved the bill, Republicans in the Senate could filibuster the bill, stopping it in its tracks.Democrats would need to throw out the filibuster — something they already lack the votes to do — to even bring the legislation to a vote.With powerful Republicans like Johnson already pushing back, getting all three of Biden's proposals implemented in the Supreme Court looks like a losing battle. But Biden's plan has already gotten support from Vice President and presumptive nominee Kamala Harris, all but guaranteeing that Democrats will use it on the campaign trail as a way to contrast against Trump.

Biden's plan to reform the Supreme Court is already 'dead on arrival' 

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 <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="bcci" source="keywords">BCCI</keyword>, 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 <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nclat" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>. 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="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?

<keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Delhi High Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Delhi High Court">Delhi High Court</keyword> on Thursday, has appointed a sole <keyword id="20233811" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="arbitrator" source="keywords">arbitrator</keyword> to address the conflicts between <keyword id="19956322" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BharatPe" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BharatPe" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="BharatPe">BharatPe</keyword> and its former MD <keyword id="20115473" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Ashneer-Grover" source="keywords">Ashneer Grover</keyword>. The disputes center around allegations that Grover breached confidentiality terms outlined in his <keyword id="20424040" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="employment-agreement" source="keywords">employment agreement</keyword> with the fintech firm. Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court has ordered the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe. BharatPe's plea under a relevant section of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act sought to resolve issues stemming from Grover's alleged breach of confidentiality by disclosing sensitive company information on social media. BharatPe proposed former <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> Justice Hemant Gupta as the arbitrator, but Grover suggested Justice (Retired) J.R. Midha instead. Grover's advocate, Giriraj Subramanium, did not oppose arbitration, but proposed that the matter be handled by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), given its ongoing involvement with related disputes over the shareholders' agreement. BharatPe's advocate, Anuj Berry, contested this, asserting that the employment agreement specifies arbitration under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), which the Court upheld. Additionally, BharatPe had previously sought a restraining order to prevent Grover from publicly disclosing company details. The Delhi High Court had previously imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh on Ashneer Grover for breaching a court order by posting derogatory content about BharatPe on social media. Justice Rekha Palli, expressing disapproval of Grover's repeated violations, mandated that he pay the costs to the Delhi High Court Clerk Association. Grover issued an unconditional apology, which the court accepted, contingent upon the payment of the imposed costs.

Delhi HC appoints arbitrator to address conflict between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe

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

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".

You Searched For "supreme court orders" and got 9 results

Elon Musk's Starlink says it will block X in Brazil after court order

BI India Bureau

Some Supreme Court justices scrutinized Nvidia's attempt to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit

Natalie Musumeci

Musk's X paid $5 million in fines to the wrong bank, Brazil's Supreme Court said

Lian Kit Wee

Biden's plan to reform the Supreme Court is already 'dead on arrival'

Grace Eliza Goodwin

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

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

Delhi HC appoints arbitrator to address conflict between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe

ANI

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

PTI

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

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides