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="6354457" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="national-company-law-tribunal" source="Orion">National Company Law Tribunal</keyword>, Chandigarh bench, has withheld the merger of realty firm <keyword id="252055" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="embassy-group" source="Orion">Embassy Group</keyword>'s certain residential and commercial projects with <keyword id="51993" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="indiabulls-real-estate" source="Orion">Indiabulls Real Estate</keyword>. Mumbai-based Indiabulls Real Estate (<keyword id="406465" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="ibrel" source="Orion">IBREL</keyword>) said it will decide on the next course of action after reading the full judgement and will explore all options, including filing an appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (<keyword id="6355809" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="nclt" source="Orion">NCLT</keyword>) before the appellate tribunal. In August 2020, Bengaluru-based realty firm Embassy Group entered into a definitive agreement to merge its certain residential and commercial projects with IBREL through a cashless scheme of amalgamation. Embassy Group will become the promoter of the merged entity. Through a regulatory filing, IBREL informed that "the sanction to the merger of NAM Estates Pvt Ltd (NAM Estates) and Embassy One Commercial Property Developments Pvt Ltd (Embassy One) into IBREL has been withheld by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench". IBREL said the merger scheme has already been sanctioned by the NCLT, Bengaluru Bench, which has jurisdiction over NAM Estates and Embassy One, on April 22, 2022. "However, the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, which has jurisdiction over IBREL, had earlier raised certain concerns based on the objections cited by the Income Tax department to the merger. "IBREL strongly believes that these objections and concerns were unfounded, unjustified and do not impact the merger in a significant manner and had accordingly addressed the same before the NCLT," the company said in the filing. IBREL said it will await the detailed order to further evaluate the next steps and shall explore all options, including filing an appeal against the order of the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at the earliest. The merger has already received overwhelming support from 99.9987 per cent of its shareholders who voted on the same and has also received approval from other regulators, it added. "IBREL's board shall be meeting over the next day to chalk out its plan and strategy to move forward and shall communicate the same to all its stakeholders," the filing said. In February 2021, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) approved the proposed merger of Embassy Group firms -- NAM Estates Pvt Ltd and Embassy One Commercial Property Developments Pvt Ltd -- with IBREL. At present, Embassy Group has around 14 per cent stake in IBREL and the same will increase to 45 per cent after the merger of assets of these two companies. Post-merger, the combined entity will have 80.8 million square feet of launched and planned development potential. The merged entity will have about 30 projects. Under the terms of the agreement, IBREL's shares are valued at Rs 92.5 per share. IBREL has a land bank of 3,280 acre, near major metropolitan cities. It has a presence in six cities -- Delhi-NCR, Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR), Jodhpur, Vadodara, Vizag and Indore. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/health/news/end-of-covid-emergency-to-affect-sales-of-diagnostics-cos-globaldata-report/articleshow/100103557.cms">End of Covid emergency to affect sales of diagnostics cos: GlobalData report</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/jamtara-global-indian-whatsapp-users-flooded-with-spam-calls/articleshow/100103446.cms">'Jamtara Global': Indian WhatsApp users flooded with spam calls</a>

NCLT withholds merger of Embassy group firms with Indiabulls Real Estate

New Delhi, Apr 8 () Observing that doctors and medical staff are the "first line of defence of the country" in the battle against COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Centre to ensure that appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) are made available to them for treating coronavirus patients. While passing a slew of interim directions to ensure safety of doctors and healthcare professionals, the apex court expressed concern over the recent incidents of attack on them and directed the Centre, all states and union territories to provide necessary police security to the medical staff in hospitals and places where patients, who are either quarantined, suspected or diagnosed with COVID-19, are housed. The top court directed that "states shall also take necessary action against those persons who obstruct and commit any offence in respect to performance of duties by doctors, medical staff and other government officials deputed to contain COVID-19". The court passed the order on three petitions seeking protective kits, other requisite equipment and safety measure for doctors and healthcare workers amid the coronavirus pandemic. The apex court directed that necessary police security be extended to doctors and other medical staffs, who visit places to conduct screening of people to find out symptoms of the disease. "The government shall explore all alternatives including enabling and augmenting domestic production of protective clothing and gear to medical professional. This includes exploring of alternative modes of production of such clothing (masks, suits, caps, gloves etc.) and permitting movement of raw materials," a bench of justices Ashok Bhushan and S Ravindra Bhat said. It said that the government may also restrict export of such materials to augment inventory and domestic stock. The bench noted that the doctors and medical staff are the "most vulnerable to fall prey to the virus, while protecting others from it". "The doctors and the medical staff who are the first line of defence of the country in combating this pandemic have to be protected by providing personal protective equipment as recommended by WHO on February 27, 2020," the bench said. Observing that it is the "first responsibility of the state to protect its citizens from the pandemic", the bench noted in its order that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had issued guidelines on January 25 which prescribe procedures and practices to be adopted for infection prevention and control. It also referred to the February 27 and March 24 guidelines issued respectively by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Union health ministry on rational use of PPE for COVID-19. Referring to the March 24 guidelines of the health ministry, the bench directed the authorities to ensure availability of appropriate PPEs, including sterile medical/nitrile gloves, starch apparels, medical masks, goggles, face shield, respirators to all health workers and paramedical professionals who are actively attending to and treating patients suffering from COVID-19 in metros, tier-2 and tier-3 cities across the country. The bench referred to certain incidents, including the one on April 2 in Tatpatti Bakhal's locality at Indore where medical staffs who had gone to screen certain persons regarding coronavirus were attacked and stones were pelted on them. "The pandemic which is engulfing the entire country is a national calamity. In wake of calamity of such nature all citizens of the country have to act in a responsible manner to extend helping hand to the government and medical staff to perform their duties to contain and combat the COVID-19," it said. "The incidents as noted above are bound to instill a sense of insecurity in doctors and medical staff from whom it is expected by the society that they looking to the call of their duties will protect citizenry from disease of COVID-19. It is the duty of the state and the police administration to provide necessary security at all places where patients who have been diagnosed coronavirus positive or who have been quarantined are housed," it said. The bench noted the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who said that steps have also been taken for procuring PPEs from domestic manufacturers. Regarding safety and security of medical professionals, Mehta said the "government will go an extra mile to augment the security as existing today.". Mehta also submitted that appropriate instructions shall be issued by the Directorate General of Health Services to private hospitals not to deduct salary of doctors and para-medical staffs working in private hospitals. ABA MNL SJK RT

SC directs Centre to ensure doctors, medical staff attending to Coronavirus patients get appropriate PPE, security

Bhopal, May 25 () Madhya Pradesh minister Kamal Patel on Monday asked officials to review matters pertaining to illegal mining at the district level and reopen cases where vehicles involved were released after imposition of fine and not booked for theft as directed by the high court. Patel is the agriculture and farmers' welfare minister in the Shivraj Singh Chouhan government in the state. "It was brought to my notice that a judge in Mandsaur district has directed authorities to impose section 379 (theft) and 414 (hiding of theft material) of IPC in cases where vehicles are involved in illegal mining. Such vehicles were released by officials by merely imposing penalty," Patel said in a letter to collectors and superintendents of police. "It is an important issue as the state is suffering revenue losses due to non-application of these sections in illegal mining and transportation cases," Patel told on Monday. "The high court's Indore bench, in its order dated May 11, has also mentioned the Mandsaur judgement and ordered all chief judicial magistrates (CJM) to register cases under sections 379 and 414 in cases where they have released vehicles involved in illegal mining by merely imposing penalty," the letter said. The high court also directed them to register cases under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in such matters, the minister pointed out in the letter. The minister directed collectors and SPs to review such cases at their level and produce them before CJMs for necessary action in compliance with the high court order, the letter said. Patel also told them that, in future, they must impose sections 379 and 414 and relevant provisions of MMDR Act in cases of illegal mining and transportation of minerals in order to comply with the HC order, the letter added. MAS BNM BNM

Review illegal mining cases at district level: MP minister

Jabalpur, May 5 ()The Madhya Pradesh High Court onTuesday issued a notice to the state government on a petitionfiled by liquor contractors seeking a directive that theircontracts be either reviewed or recalled in view of the"unstable" market condition caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.A division bench of Chief Justice AK Mittal andJustice VK Shukla posted the next hearing to May 19, afterissuing the notice which is returnable in two weeks.The petition was filed on a day the state governmentallowed reopening of shops in Madhya Pradesh, barring Bhopal,Ujjain and Indore under red zone."The petition filed by 30 liquor contractors fromvarious parts of the state sought either revision of the termsand conditions of their contract or recalling of the entirebidding process of liquor sale for the current fiscal in viewof the market situation (economic slowdown) arising out of theCOVID pandemic," said the petitioners' counsel Rahul Diwakar.The terms and conditions of the license were based onnormal market conditions but the situation has changeddrastically now, he said."As per the clause 36 of the Excise Policy, the liquorlicensees are allowed to operate their shops between 9.30 amand 11.30 pm daily," stated the petition.However, due to curtailment of timings since May 5, ithas become difficult for them to earn expected amount ofrevenue quoted in their bids, the counsel said.The excise policy permits liquor contractors to runand operate retail shops, bars and 'ahatas' (low budgetdrinking vends usually attached to liquor shops), Diwakarsaid."However, in view of COVID-19 pandemic, bars and'ahatas' have been directed to remain shut which makes thelicensees to pay the fees every fortnight," he said.Meanwhile, a liquor contractor told that they bagthe annual contracts to sell liquor through a biddingsprocess."We have to pay an annual licence fee which is incrores. We make part payment of the fee every fortnight," headded. CORR LAL MASNSK NSK

Coronavirus:MP liquor contractors fear loss of income, move HC

<ul><li>Women had equal rights to inherit an ancestral property in India since 2005 but the latest Supreme Court verdict made it retrospectively applicable. </li><li>This may allow aggrieved <keyword id="1773011" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Hindu-women">Hindu women</keyword> to challenge old disputes that have been settled in specific situations, subject to certain conditions. </li><li>Check out the latest news and updates on Business Insider. </li></ul>In a landmark ruling earlier this month, a Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra and comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah, stated that a daughter’s right to be a joint heir to the ancestral property is by birth. This development is important because, while women have had equal rights to inherit property in India under the Hindu Succession Act since 2005 — the latest Supreme Court verdict made it retrospectively applicable. This may allow aggrieved Hindu women to challenge old disputes that have been settled in specific situations. The Hindu Succession Act applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs in India. Business Insider spoke to lawyers to understand the implications of the Supreme Court ruling. 1. How is it different from the one judgment after the 2005 amendment? The Supreme Court ruling has categorically held that the 2005 Amendment would apply to any daughter who was living at the time of passing of the Amendment. Thus, every daughter would be considered a coparcener — a person who enjoys equal rights in the share of the ancestral property — just like sons. This is irrespective of whether the daughter’s father was living or deceased when the 2005 Amendment was passed, according to Bijal Ajinkya, Partner, Khaitan &amp; Co. Previous judgments by the Supreme Court such as Prakash vs Phulavati (2016) and Danamma (2018) have given conflicting decisions in this regard. The Supreme Court decision has overruled Prakash vs Phulavati in its entirety and Danamma to the extent that it conflicts with the present ruling, Ajinkya added. 2. Can cases whose judgment has been passed already before 2005 opened? If a final order of partition has been passed by the court, that case cannot be reopened. However, if only a preliminary order has been passed, the case can be reopened Similarly, if prior to 2005 if partition (or family settlement) through a registered deed has taken place and been implemented, the case cannot be reopened. In no case is there an automatic reopening and the earlier transaction would need to be challenged by the female coparcener in court. 3. In what situation can women reopen a case? In order to reopen a case of the partition (or family settlement) which has taken place after 2005, a woman would need to challenge the partition or settlement deed and likely prove that she was not acknowledged as a coparcener or denied her legitimate share in the joint family property. Further, if duress on her part can be proved, her consent to any deed or action can be made void. Whether a condition or duress existed at the time would need to be examined based on the facts, Ajinkya said. According to Sonam Chandwani, Managing Partner, KS Legal &amp; Associates, the partition is irrevocable in nature. However, for the purposes of equity, the law permits reopening the partition already affected in a few instances, including fraud, adopted son, minor or disqualified coparcener. The rationale behind is to prevent gross injustice to the member of the family. 3. What is the process to reopen cases? If the larger family does not want to reopen the case, the document or decree through which the partition or family settlement has been effected would need to be challenged in court, Ajinkya said. He further added that in case the larger family is amenable to reopening the case, a family settlement deed can be executed among the family members to redistribute the assets which were distributed through a previous deed – this should be adequately stamped or registered. 5. Can women challenge property distribution where they have already accepted a settlement? If the property distribution took place before 2005 through a valid, binding partition or family settlement — like through registered deed or final decree of court — the woman has no right since she was not a coparcener. If the property distribution took place after 2005, the woman has a right as a coparcener and would be able to challenge it. However, if she also consented to the deed and was acknowledged as a coparcener, the deed would ordinarily be binding on her irrespective of whether or not she received a share, Ajinkya explained. 6. What happens in 'Haq Tyaag' cases where women 'voluntarily' give up rights to the property because father or brother paid the dowry? Mere payment of dowry by father or brother does not preclude the woman from claiming her rights in the joint family property. However, if the ‘Haq tyaag’ has taken place through a registered deed executed by the woman where she has voluntarily given up her rights to the joint family property, no action can be taken by the woman, Ajinkya said. 7. What happens in a case where the woman is an adopted child? Generally, the rights of an adopted child — whether son or daughter— are the same as that of a natural-born child. However, while the Supreme Court has emphasized that rights to coparcenary property may be conferred by adoption as well, it has not been made clear whether an adopted daughter would have the same rights as a natural-born daughter. This issue is also not judicially tested, Ajinkya said. 8. If there is no paperwork and the earlier the settlement was just verbal, then is it straightaway liable to be reopened? The Supreme Court has held that claims of an oral partition are to be rejected outright. Those who claim that an oral partition took place prior to the 2005 amendment must provide substantial documentary evidence of the partition having been implemented, including showing public documents to this effect. However, there is no automatic reopening and the earlier transaction would need to be challenged in court, Ajinkya said. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/economy/news/these-are-the-20-countries-with-the-highest-gold-reserves/articleshow/77605753.cms">These are the 20 countries with the highest gold reserves</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/environment/news/these-are-the-top-20-cleanest-cities-in-india-in-2020/articleshow/77650052.cms">These are the top 20 cleanest cities in India— Indore tops the list for fourth year in a row</a>

You Searched For "Indore bench" and got 5 results

NCLT withholds merger of Embassy group firms with Indiabulls Real Estate

PTI

SC directs Centre to ensure doctors, medical staff attending to Coronavirus patients get appropriate PPE, security

PTI

Review illegal mining cases at district level: MP minister

PTI

Coronavirus:MP liquor contractors fear loss of income, move HC

PTI

Indian women can now reclaim property even in some settled cases — 8 questions that explain the possibilities

Preeti Soni

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides