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

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

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

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

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Wednesday stayed the judgment rendered by the <keyword id="6371973" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="karnataka-high-court" source="Orion">Karnataka High Court</keyword> which had quashed the show cause notice issued by the <keyword id="4715965" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="gst-department" source="Orion">GST department</keyword> demanding approximately Rs 21,000 crore from the online platform '<keyword id="7337525" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="gameskraft" source="Orion">Gameskraft</keyword>' holding that rummy is a 'game of skill'. A bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued the notice on the special leave petition filed by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and listed the matter for hearing after three weeks. "We do not want High Courts across India to rely on this judgment (of the Karnataka High Court)," remarked the top court, while staying the impugned judgment of the Karnataka High Court passed in May 11 this year. Online gaming and GST Earlier, in July this year, the <keyword id="6355040" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="gst-council" source="Orion">GST Council</keyword> levied a 28% rate to casinos, horse racing, etc. on the amount the gaming company earns from its users. It also recommended removing the critical distinction between 'game of skill' and 'game of chance'. “The Government is saying that if it is a game of chance, it will come under the category of betting, gambling, so there will be a GST of 28% on the gross value. The industry is saying that it is a game of skill and should be liable to 18% GST, not on the gross value, but only on the commission component,” Pratik Jain, Partner, PwC India, had explained to Business Insider. Thus, the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/news/online-gaming-industry-says-28-gst-makes-operations-unfeasible/articleshow/101690521.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">industry has been asking for a GST rollback</a> as it claims that the 28% levied has made operations unfeasible.

SC stays K'taka HC decision quashing Rs 21,000 cr GST notice to online gaming platform

<ul><li><keyword id="6371973" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="karnataka-high-court" source="Orion">Karnataka High Court</keyword> has rejected Chinese firm <keyword id="874458" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="xiaomi" source="Orion">Xiaomi</keyword>'s plea against the seizure of Rs 5,551.27 crore.</li><li>A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, on Friday, though dismissed the petition, upheld its maintainability.</li></ul><keyword id="6354321" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="bengaluru" source="Orion">Bengaluru</keyword>, Karnataka High Court has rejected Chinese firm Xiaomi's plea against the seizure of Rs 5,551.27 crore from its bank accounts by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, on Friday, though dismissed the petition, upheld its maintainability. The Chinese technology company is facing charges of violations of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). The bench observed that challenge to the Constitutional validity of Section 37A of the Act by the petitioner is held to be maintainable, on the fulcrum of the allegation that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As Article 14 is person centric whereas Fundamental Rights under Article 19 are citizen centric. Appearing for the central government and the ED, Additional Solicitor General M.B. Nargund Amaintained that Xiaomi is a foreign entity and can not maintain writ petition. Earlier, counsels for <keyword id="2210169" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="xiaomi-india" source="Orion">Xiaomi India</keyword> had argued that the firm was being targetted as it is a Chinese company and other companies are allowed to make payments of technology royalty. They have also brought to the notice of the court that banks are not allowing Xiaomi to make remittances in foreign exchange for imports. They argued that the company is required to make payments for foreign companies in connection with manufacturing and marketing smartphones. Contesting this Additional Solicitor General Nargund had explained that the authorities had no complaints if Xiaomi is agreeable to keep the seized amount in the bank and use remaining amount. He brought to the notice of the court that on April 24 and 29, before the ED passed the order to seize Xiaomi's bank accounts, there was a transfer of around Rs 1,500 crore from the company's bank accounts as per the available information. However, <keyword id="2402890" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="xiomi" source="Orion">Xiomi</keyword> is maintaining that royalty payments made to three companies abroad would not violate the FEMA Act. The company further maintained that the IT department itself had allowed it as a value added activity. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/bard-to-magi-googles-latest-weapon-in-the-battle-for-search-supremacy/articleshow/99576251.cms">From Bard to Magi: Google's latest weapon in the battle for search supremacy</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/ai-generated-images-and-videos-a-game-changer-or-a-threat-to-authenticity/articleshow/99560443.cms">AI-generated images and videos: A game-changer or a threat to authenticity?</a>

K'taka HC rejects plea by Chinese firm Xiaomi challenging ED

The <keyword id="6371973" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Karnataka-high-court" source="Orion">Karnataka High Court</keyword> on Monday struck down provisions of the <keyword id="6354780" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="karnataka" source="Orion">Karnataka</keyword> Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 that banned online games. The division bench headed by the Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Krishna S. Dixit gave the order. The bench said in its order that in the 'Karnataka Act number 28/2021 to the extent the provisions, (not the entire Act) declared to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India and struck down. The consequences of striking down the provisions shall follow.' "However, nothing in this judgment shall be construed to prevent an appropriate legislation be brought about concerning the subject i.e; betting and gambling in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. A writ of mandamus is issued restraining the respondents from interfering with online gaming business and allied activities of the petitioners," the order said. The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Bill, 2021 was mooted by ruling BJP to amend the Karnataka Police Act 1963, in the Monsoon session. The BJP leaders claimed that they were introducing the Bill to ban online gaming in the interest of people. The law included all forms of wagering or betting in connection with any game of chance barring horse racing. However, the new law was opposed by online gaming companies and it was said that the policy would affect the prospectus of the city which is emerging as a hub of online gaming companies. The new Act banned all formats of online games involving wagering, betting and gambling of all nature and forms in the state. Under the new legislation, online gaming was considered a non-bailable offence with a fine of Rs 1 lakh and imprisonment up to three years. Along with banning games of skills, the government had also categorised online games using electronic means and virtual currency, electronic transfer of funds in connection with any game as gambling. The new legislation was passed in the Monsoon session by both the Houses of the legislature in Karnataka. Mobile Premier League (MPL) was one of the first companies to stall its operations in Karnataka. Paytm First Games was also locked. The online gaming companies moved to the court questioning the new legislation. Similar law was also challenged in Tamil Nadu and online gaming operators got relief against the government order from the High Court. The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) had stated that the new legislation by the government will dent the image of Karnataka as a startup hub and the state exchequer will see a huge revenue deficit. It also maintained that with the new legislation offshore gamblers will flourish. Sources say that the state has more than 100 gaming companies with a workforce of 4,000. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/tech-giant-tencent-is-limiting-kids-access-to-its-gaming-platform-and-only-allowing-them-14-hours-of-play-during-chinas-4-week-school-break/articleshow/88974669.cms">Tech giant Tencent is limiting kids' access to its gaming platform and only allowing them 14 hours of play during China's 4-week school break</a>

Karnataka High Court quashes law banning online gaming, calls it unconstitutional

In a major relief to major tech giant <keyword id="2210169" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="xiaomi-india" source="Orion">Xiaomi India</keyword>, the <keyword id="6371973" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="karnataka-high-court" source="Orion">Karnataka High Court</keyword> has permitted it to take overdrafts from banks and make payments. However, the court has excluded the payment of technology royalty. Vacation Judge Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav on Thursday also extended the interim order till May 23 and stated that the matter is now between the banks and the petitioner company. The court had given conditional stay on the order given by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on April 29 to seize a whopping Rs 5,513.3 crore amount. The ED has taken the step after invoking the <keyword id="88944" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="foreign-exchange-management-act" source="Orion">Foreign Exchange Management Act</keyword>, 1999. Senior advocate S. Ganeshan argued that <keyword id="874458" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="xiaomi" source="Orion">Xiaomi</keyword> India was being targeted as it is a Chinese company and other companies are allowed to make payments of technology royalty. Seeking clarification on the earlier interim order on May 5, he argued that banks are not allowing Xiaomi to make remittances in foreign exchange for imports following the court order. He explained that the company is required to make payments for foreign companies in connection with manufacturing and marketing smartphones. Contesting this Additional Solicitor General M.B. Nargund said that the authorities have no complaints if Xiaomi is agreeable to keep the seized amount in the bank and use the remaining amount. He brought to the notice of the court that on April 24 and 29, before the ED passed the order to seize Xiaomi's bank accounts, there was a transfer of around Rs 1,500 crore from the company's bank accounts as per the available information. However, Xiaomi is maintaining that royalty payments made to three companies abroad would not violate the FEMA Act. The company further maintained that the I-T department itself had allowed it as a value added activity. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/china-ups-its-attacks-on-india-as-xiaomi-accuses-ed-of-physical-violence-threats/articleshow/91458920.cms">China wants India to treat Chinese companies fairly as Xiaomi claims ED threatened its executives of physical violence</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/chinese-state-media-says-indias-seizure-of-over-5500-crore-from-xiaomi-could-be-seen-as-a-crackdown-on-chinese-companies/articleshow/91434053.cms">Chinese state media says India's seizure of over ₹5,500 crore from Xiaomi could be seen as a crackdown on Chinese companies</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/xiaomis-manu-kumar-jain-has-been-reportedly-summoned-by-the-enforcement-directorate/articleshow/90803402.cms">Xiaomi’s Manu Kumar Jain has been reportedly summoned by the Enforcement Directorate</a>

Karnataka High Court allows Xiaomi to take overdraft for payments, restricts royalty payment

<keyword id="6354780" type="ENTERTAINMENT" weightage="20" keywordseo="Karnataka">Karnataka</keyword> has become the first state in the country to provide one per cent <keyword id="6361164" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="reservation">reservation</keyword> for the 'transgender' community in all the government services. The government submitted a report to the <keyword id="6355392" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="High-Court">High Court</keyword> in this regard informing that a notification had already been issued after amending the <keyword id="4167721" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="karnataka-civil-service">Karnataka Civil Service</keyword> (General Recruitment) Rule, 1977. The final notification issued on July 6, specifies one per cent reservation in all general as well as reserve categories for the third gender. Whenever a notification is published inviting applications for the government jobs, 'others' column must be added along with male and female columns. The notification also underlines that there should not be any discrimination to the transgenders in the process of selection. In case of non-availability of transgender candidates, the job could be given to male or female from the same category, the notification notes. 'Sangama', an NGO had filed a Public Interest Petition (<keyword id="6355791" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="PIL">PIL</keyword>) in the High Court questioning denial of job opportunities in the <keyword id="11688625" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="state-special-reserve-constable-force">State Special Reserve Constable Force</keyword> and Bandsman postings. The High Court Divisional Bench headed by the Chief Justice A.S. Oka heard the case on Tuesday. The public prosecutor appearing for the government, Vijay Kumar Patil, informed the Bench that the government has provided the one per cent horizontal reservation in government recruitments by bringing amendment to the existing rule. Jayna Kothari, a senior advocate who has also submitted a petition from 'Jeeva' NGO argued that the present amendment accommodated third gender in government services. However, the court should give directions to ensure job opportunities in various boards and corporations, she underlined. The High Court Divisional Bench told her that, if a separate petition is filed in this regard, it would consider giving directions to the government. The bench has also asked the prosecutor appearing for the Central government to specify its stand on the matter. The High Court welcomed and commended the action of the government. SEE ALSO- <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/policybazaar-plans-to-raise-close-to-870-million-through-its-ipo-at-a-likely-valuation-of-3-5-billion/articleshow/84606274.cms">PolicyBazaar plans to raise close to $870 million through its IPO at a likely valuation of $3.5 billion</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/samsung-galaxy-z-fold-and-galaxy-z-flip-foldable-smartphones-launching-on-11-august/articleshow/84606447.cms">Samsung to unveil Galaxy Z Fold and Galaxy Z Flip foldable smartphones at its August 11 Galaxy Unpacked event</a>

Karnataka becomes the first state in India to provide reservation for transgenders in all government services

<ul><li><keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> to hear a plea on a law prohibiting betting and wagering in online games.</li><li>The <keyword id="6354780" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="karnataka" source="Orion">Karnataka</keyword> government contended that cybercrime has become a major issue in the last three years while emphasising the need for a law against online gaming.</li><li>Senior advocates <keyword id="195903" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="mukul-rohatgi" source="Orion">Mukul Rohatgi</keyword>, A.M Singhvi, and <keyword id="1326066" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="shyam-divan" source="Orion">Shyam Divan</keyword>, represented the gaming companies' associations.</li></ul>The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a plea by the Karnataka government, challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment, which struck down provisions of law prohibiting betting and wagering in online games. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, A.M Singhvi, and Shyam Divan, represented the gaming companies' associations, submitted before a bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian that the issue was whether it was game of skill or chance or gambling. The Karnataka government contended that cybercrime has become a major issue and cited filing of 28,000 cases in the last three years, while emphasising the need for a law against online gaming to maintain public order. It further argued that people have died by suicide and the online gaming has ruined many families, therefore it was necessary to deal with its ill effects. The state government's plea said: "The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 made criminalised wagering, betting or risking money on the unknown result of an event." On February 14 this year, the high court struck down the government's ban and the legal provision which criminalised playing games of skill, including online games, and betting. The top court issued notice to online gaming industry body All India Gaming Federation and skill-based gaming firms. It directed to tag this matter with a similar matter, where the Tamil Nadu government has challenged the judgment by the Madras High Court. The Karnataka High Court had said that the Act was unconstitutional and there cannot be any ban on online games of skill. The state government contended before the apex court that the high court had grossly erred in not taking into account the material produced by it in connection with cases registered by the police authorities. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/gautam-adani-just-1-billion-away-from-becoming-the-second-richest-person-in-the-world-as-per-bloomberg-index-report/articleshow/94242575.cms">Gautam Adani is $1 billion away from beating Jeff Bezos as the second richest person in the world</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/tech-glitch-man-loses-11677-crore-windfall-from-demat-account-in-hours/articleshow/94219695.cms">Tech Glitch: Man loses ₹11,677 crore windfall from demat account in hours</a>

SC admits Karnataka govt plea on online gaming

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

<ul><li>A single-judge bench had also dismissed the petition on June 11.</li><li><keyword id="18635" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Amazon">Amazon</keyword> and <keyword id="6354742" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Flipkart">Flipkart</keyword> have been accused of carrying out business malpractices. </li><li>CCI says that if there is nothing to hide, then Amazon and Flipkart should not pitch to stop the probe.</li></ul>Karnataka High Court, on Friday, July 23, dismissed a plea filed by Amazon and Flipkart against the probe initiated by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for alleged competition law violation. The order was passed by a division bench, comprising Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Natraj Rangaswamy. The bench noted, “By no stretch of imagination can inquiry be quashed at this stage… Appellants should not be afraid of investigation of CCI… In the considered opinion of the Court, appeals filed by appellants are devoid of merit and deserved to be dismissed…” The development was first <a href="https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/cci-probe-smartphone-sales-karnataka-high-court-junks-appeals-amazon-flipkart">reported</a> by Indian legal news portal Bar &amp; Bench. Amazon had approached the Karnataka High Court against a CCI order that called for Director General (DG) investigation. Amazon had been accused of carrying out an anti-competitive conduct in the online sale of smartphones on its platform. Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh (<keyword id="9864994" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="dvm">DVM</keyword>), which had made these allegations, also accused Amazon of other business malpractices like predatory pricing, deep discounting, preferential seller listing, and exclusive partnerships. Flipkart too was named in these allegations. Both Amazon and Flipkart had filed a petition to scrap the CCI investigation. A single-judge bench of Justice PS Dinesh Kumar had also dismissed the petition on June 11. The division bend had upheld that decision. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Madhavi Divan, appearing for CCI, also submitted a report highlighting a search bias on the respective platforms. Divan elaborated that Amazon and Flipkart were pushing certain sellers, and not giving equal visibility to all sellers. Amazon, on the other hand, claimed that its algorithm is dictated by consumers and preferential listing is based upon the reflection of the consumers. "If there is nothing to hide, then there is no reason to scuttle the investigation", submitted Divan. SEE ALSO <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/uber-made-a-billion-dollar-from-zomatos-listing-without-spending-a-single-penny/articleshow/84672970.cms">Uber made a billion dollar from Zomato’s listing, without spending a single penny</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/deepinder-goyals-stake-in-zomato-is-now-worth-more-than-700-million/articleshow/84676854.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink">Deepinder Goyal’s stake in Zomato is now worth more than $700 million</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/zomato-and-swiggy-are-best-food-delivery-apps-in-the-world-says-zomatos-ceo/articleshow/84668175.cms">Zomato and Swiggy are best food delivery apps in the world, says Zomato’s CEO</a>

Karnataka High Court dismisses Amazon, Flipkart plea against CCI probe

The government's plans to coerce the liquor traders into opening the vends in the states have recoiled with <keyword id="6397813" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Madhya-Pradesh-high-court">Madhya Pradesh High Court</keyword> restraining it from taking any action against the liquor contractors during the pendency of the case till Wednesday. The liquor contractors filed an application seeking interim protection against the government which took action against some of them. <keyword id="9335828" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="rahul-diwakar">Rahul Diwakar</keyword>, the petitioners' lawyer told the court that the authorities are taking action against a few petitioners by imposing penalty and issuing letters to forfeit the bank guarantee. This was contrary to the state government undertaking in the court that it would refrain from taking action during the hearing. The petitioners pleaded with the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. A division bench of the Chief Justice AK Mittal and <keyword id="2943928" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-VK-Shukla">Justice VK Shukla</keyword> issued the interim direction during hearing of the petitioners' application, the counsel said. The Court also issued notices to the respondents - the principal secretary (<keyword id="6382936" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Excise-Department">Excise Department</keyword>) and the excise commissioner during the hearing. The court will continue to hear the liquor contractors on Wednesday, the counsel said. The Government went as far as threatening to take over the liquor trade. The cash- strapped MP government is mulling to run the liquor shops in the state as the liquor contractors are unrelenting, sources said. Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan had said that the state economy has collapsed due to <keyword id="1754604" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="coronavirus">coronavirus</keyword>. The court on Tuesday heard the petition filed by 30 liquor contractors from various parts of the state. The liquor contractors have sought the HC direction to the state government to either revise the terms and conditions of their contract or recall the entire bidding process of liquor sale for the current fiscal due to economic slowdown caused by the Corona pandemic. A tussle is going on between the state government and the liquor contractors after the majority of the liquor shops were closed in despite the state government's order to re-open them last month. The liquor retailers said that the contract, 25 per cent higher than the rates of last fiscal, with the state government will burn a hole in their pocket in the wake of downturn in the market. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/data-of-coronavirus-patients-state-wise-in-india/articleshow/74669748.cms">Coronavirus cases in India state wise</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/list-of-coronavirus-hotspots-and-containment-zones-in-karnataka/articleshow/75151544.cms">List of coronavirus hotspot in Karnataka</a>

The battle between liquor deals and the government of Madhya Pradesh continues to intensify

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 "Karnataka High Court" and got 12 results

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

BI India Bureau

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

PTI

SC stays K'taka HC decision quashing Rs 21,000 cr GST notice to online gaming platform

IANS

K'taka HC rejects plea by Chinese firm Xiaomi challenging ED

IANS

Karnataka High Court quashes law banning online gaming, calls it unconstitutional

IANS

Karnataka High Court allows Xiaomi to take overdraft for payments, restricts royalty payment

IANS

Karnataka becomes the first state in India to provide reservation for transgenders in all government services

IANS

SC admits Karnataka govt plea on online gaming

IANS

Supreme Court asks Amazon, Flipkart to volunteer for CCI probe

IANS

Karnataka High Court dismisses Amazon, Flipkart plea against CCI probe

Kritti Bhalla

The battle between liquor deals and the government of Madhya Pradesh continues to intensify

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