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

<ul><li>A former court staff has accused <keyword id="45053" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-of-India">Chief Justice of India</keyword> <keyword id="245445" type="PERSON" weightage="40" keywordseo="Ranjan-Gogoi">Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> of making sexual advances at her in his home office, according to a report. </li><li>The appellant has also alleged that she was dismissed when she resisted and that her family members were targeted thereafter. </li><li>Supreme Court of India assembled a special bench, including CJI Gogoi, to hear the case on Saturday.</li></ul>The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi, has been accused of sexual harassment by a former staff, <a href="https://scroll.in/article/920678/chief-justice-of-india-sexually-harassed-me-says-former-sc-staffer-in-affidavit-to-22-judges">according to a report by Scroll</a>. In the wake of this shocking allegation, the Supreme Court of India assembled a special judges’ bench on Saturday (April 20), which CJI Gogoi was also a part of. A former court officer who worked from Gogoi’s home office between August and December 2018 has accused the CJI of making sexual advances adding that when she resisted, she was unceremoniously terminated. In an affidavit, the 35-year old woman has also alleged that even her family members were targeted and harassed after her dismissal. The registrar’s note said that the special hearing was scheduled on a “matter of great public importance touching up on the independence of the judiciary.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta prodded the Bench to register a complaint in his name but the court refrained for the time being and asked to media to show restraint, responsibility and wisdom so that the independence of the judiciary is not affected by baseless allegations. 
 
 <div type="javascript" title="Custom" contenttype="Video"><cdata><![CDATA[
 
]]></cdata></div>





 “They cannot catch me on money, so they have brought up this. This is the reward a CJI gets after 20 years and a bank balance of 680,000. Independence of judiciary is under very serious threat. I had to tell this from the judicial seat", <a href="https://barandbench.com/live-updates-from-sc-sexual-harassment-allegations-cji/">CJI Gogoi reportedly said</a> in his defence citing that he had less than ten hours to present his defence. Ranjan Gogoi was one of the four judges who came out in an unprecedented press conference in January 2017 protesting against the then CJI <keyword id="6355251" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword>. In a letter, four senior judges had said that “there have been instances where cases having far reaching consequences for the nation and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court selectively to the benches ‘of their preference’ without any rationale basis for such assignment.” Gogoi signed off on the letter saying,“it’s a discharge of debt to the nation which we have done.”

India’s chief justice is faced with a shocking sexual harassment charge-- and the Supreme Court just held a special hearing on a Saturday

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

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

<ul><li>The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre and the CBSE to issue fresh notification in connection with Class 12 exams, clarifying the option between internal assessment and exams later.</li><li>A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna asked the Centre to clarify the issue of taking the option between internal assessment and exams later.</li><li>The apex court also sought clarity on the beginning of the new academic year.</li></ul>The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre and the CBSE to issue fresh notification in connection with Class 12 exams, clarifying the option between internal assessment and exams later. The observation from the top court after it was informed that the CBSE has decided to cancel the remaining board exams for Class 10 and Class 12. A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna asked the Centre to clarify the issue of taking the option between internal assessment and exams later. "Clarify the date of results," said the bench, noting that the CBSE will have to submit a fresh draft notification cancelling class 12 Board exams and affidavit on Friday morning, before the top court continues to hear the matter again at 10.30 a.m. The apex court also sought clarity on the beginning of the new academic year. It told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, that the CBSE is willing to conduct exams when the situation is conducive, but this may vary from state to state. "Will the decision be taken by a central authority or will the state government take the decision? How are you going to deal with that situation?" Mehta replied that the decision must be taken according to the situation. To this, the bench said should not the solution be pan-India? "You have not said when you will decide on this issue, and when you will take stock of these things. Some time frame will have to be given," noted the bench. Continuing its queries, the bench said: "What about state regional board exams... the CBSE does not hold all the exams. The state Board is also there." Mehta replied that the instructions from the controller of examinations are that exams are controlled centrally. "State boards assist the CBSE," he replied. The bench observed that the government should modify the draft notification and include the state board issue. "Clear the stand that decision will be taken at the central level and not at the state level... other courses will have to be delayed till CBSE exam results come out," it said. Mehta replied the assessment results will be published now, and if a student wants to opt to give the exam, then that will be conducted later. The top court asked Mehta to bring this on record and redraft the notification.

SC asks CBSE for more details on class 12's internal assessment and 'exams later' option

The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> Monday asked the Karnataka High Court to decide the CCI plea for vacating stay on the investigation against 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> for alleged anti-competitive practices. A bench comprising Justices A M Khanwikar, Dinesh Maheswari and Sanjiv Khanna asked the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to approach the High Court for relief. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CCI said that the probe ordered against e-commerce companies was administrative in nature and would not affect the rights of any party. He sought keeping the petition pending saying there are several wider issues involved in the case. Senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for the e-commerce companies, said the CCI approached the top court after the delay of over 200 days. The bench said that the High Court would hear the matter and decide it within six weeks and added the petition may be revived if no decision is given by the High Court in the said period. On February 14, the High Court had granted an interim stay on the investigation ordered by the CCI against e-commerce companies Amazon and Flipkart. Amazon had moved the high court seeking a stay on the investigation ordered by the CCI. Flipkart also filed a petition in the High Court seeking to quash the order passed by the CCI directing a probe into allegations of anti-competitive conduct. In its plea, Amazon had sought quashing and setting aside the CCI's January 13, 2020 probe order, and had also prayed the court to provide relief based on "facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice". In its petition before the High Court, Amazon had contended that the CCI order had been passed "without application of mind" and would cause irreparable loss/ injury to the goodwill/reputation of the company if an investigation is allowed. The fair trade regulator CCI, in January, this year had ordered the probe against Flipkart and Amazon for alleged malpractices, including deep discounting and tie-ups with preferred sellers on their platforms. The order by CCI followed complaints filed by traders' bodies including by Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh, whose members comprise many traders dealing in smart phones and related accessories. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/kotak-mahindra-bank-q2-results-show-profit-up-by-27/articleshow/78869757.cms">Kotak Mahindra Bank still on ‘alert’ as profit improves 27% over the last three months</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/defense/news/nsa-ajit-doval-new-india-doctrine-declared-ahead-of-mike-pompeo-visit-to-india/articleshow/78868816.cms">National Security Advisor lays ‘New India’ doctrine ahead of Pompeo’s visit to India</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/indusind-bank-shares-rally-4-after-rumours-of-kotak-mahindra-bank-merger/articleshow/78867706.cms">IndusInd Bank shares rally 4% after promoters refute reports of merger with Kotak Mahindra Bank</a>

Supreme Court jumps in for Amazon and Flipkart after Karnataka High Court remains mum on investigation against their anti-competitive practices for over 200 days

You Searched For "Justice Sanjiv Khanna" and got 5 results

India’s chief justice is faced with a shocking sexual harassment charge-- and the Supreme Court just held a special hearing on a Saturday

Sriram Iyer

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

PTI

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

IANS

SC asks CBSE for more details on class 12's internal assessment and 'exams later' option

IANS

Supreme Court jumps in for Amazon and Flipkart after Karnataka High Court remains mum on investigation against their anti-competitive practices for over 200 days

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides