New Delhi [India], September 11 (ANI): The street dog menace grabbed the attention of the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> when a lawyer attended the apex court hearing with a bandage and the Chief Justice of India DY <keyword id="364737" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="chandrachud" source="Orion">Chandrachud</keyword> inquired about the back story. Meanwhile, Solicitor General <keyword id="243257" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="tushar-mehta" source="Orion">Tushar Mehta</keyword> called it a "serious issue". CJI Chandrachud noticed that a lawyer in its court was having a bandage in his hand. CJI enquired from the lawyer about the incident that led to injuries. The lawyer apprised the court that he was surrounded by five dogs and got bitten by them. When the CJI asked whether they were street dogs, the lawyer replied yes. CJI asked him if he needed assistance and medical help. CJI also talked about one incident in which his law clerk was parking his car and was also attacked by a dog. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta called it a serious menace. <keyword id="8015630" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="sg-mehta" source="Orion">SG Mehta</keyword> also apprised the court that a child was bitten by dogs in Uttar Pradesh and later he got rabies. Doctors also give up as nothing can be done to cure the child. Later the child died in his father's lap. Earlier on September 6, in Ghaziabad a 14-year-old boy who hid a dog bite for over a month from his parents out of fear, died of rabies, police said on Tuesday. According to police, the incident occurred under the Vijay Nagar police station limits in Ghaziabad. "Information was received at Vijay Nagar police station on September 5 that a 14-year-old boy had died due to a dog bite. Later it came to the fore that the deceased child's treatment couldn't be done as he had hidden the dog bite from his parents. A few days ago the child started showing symptoms of rabies. Only then the family members brought him to the hospital for his treatment. However, he died during the treatment," Assistant Commissioner of Police, <keyword id="1089086" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="nimish-patel" source="Orion">Nimish Patel</keyword> said. The family members say that the 14-year-old had hidden the incident for over a month and a half out of fear from his parents. The uncle of the deceased said that the stray dogs frequently attack people as they are not leashed and that this is not the first incident. "The dogs are not leashed and they attack anyone and this is not the first incident. We have registered a complaint and the police are looking into the matter," the deceased's relative said. (ANI)

Menace of street dogs discussed in Supreme Court; SG Mehta calls it 'serious issue'

The Central government on Monday informed the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> that the existing structure, which includes the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and others agencies, are fully equipped to handle the situation which occurred after Hindenburg report on <keyword id="76451" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="adani" source="Orion">Adani</keyword> group, and it would not oppose the court's suggestion to constitute a committee to strengthen the existing regime. It stressed that the court could permit it to suggest the remit of that committee with possible suggestions of names of the committee. Solicitor General <keyword id="243257" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="tushar-mehta" source="Orion">Tushar Mehta</keyword>, representing the Centre, submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that: "Our instructions are that existing structure - Sebi and other agencies - are fully equipped not only regime wise but otherwise also, in taking care of the situation. "However, responding to suggestion which fell from your lordshipsathe government has no objection in constituting a committee." <keyword id="6371425" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="mehta" source="Orion">Mehta</keyword> stressed that the remit of the committee should be very relevant because any unintentional message to the international investors and domestic investors that even a regulator or statutory monitoring authority also needs a monitoring by a committee appointed by the Supreme Court may have some adverse impact on the flow of money. He sought that the court could permit the government to suggest the remit of that committee with possible suggestions of names of the committee in a sealed cover, as it may not be appropriate to discuss in open court hearing. "We suggest some names, which appeal to your lordships, may not appeal... but would be the people of some calibre or some standing in their respective fields, but the remit will be very relevant," he said. The bench, also comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, asked the SG to come back with the proposed remit of the committee by Friday and put it down on a note for the bench to examine, so that it could either modify or reflect on it, and then it can pronounce an order. Advocate Vishal <keyword id="6364858" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="tiwari" source="Orion">Tiwari</keyword>, one of the petitioners, argued that although organisational structure is there, yet this problem has arisen, there may be some loopholes which could be examined by the expert committee. The bench said it will continue hearing the matter on Friday. On February 10, the Supreme Court had observed that there is a need for a robust regulatory framework to protect the interest of the investors and if Centre agrees, a committee may be set up to suggest regulatory improvements. The apex court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to set up a committee monitored by a retired apex court judge to investigate the Hindenburg Research report, which resulted in crashing of Adani group company share prices and caused massive loss to investors. Two separate petitions have been filed by advocates Tiwari and M.L. Sharma in connection with the Hindenburg report on Adani group. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/ev-startup-magenta-mobility-raises-40-million-in-equity-and-debt/articleshow/97870324.cms">EV startup Magenta Mobility raises $40 million in equity and debt</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/adani-group-delhivery-nykaa-policybazaar-among-stocks-to-watch-on-monday/articleshow/97852221.cms">Sensex, Nifty50 end lower amid fall in Adani stocks, PSU banks, IT, metal stocks</a>

Sebi 'fully equipped', could set up a panel of experts: Centre to SC on Adani issue

<ul><li>Social media links SEBI’s 2016 GDR order against 51 companies to regulator's probe into Hindenburg allegations. </li><li><keyword id="155364" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="solicitor-general" source="Orion">Solicitor General</keyword> says deliberate attempts are being made to link two unrelated issues. </li><li>SEBI has submitted a status report to the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on its investigation into the minimum public shareholding norms in Adani group companies. </li></ul> It is a well known fact that social media can wreak havoc on individuals and companies alike, but the influence of these platforms is underlined further when the country’s Solicitor General has to answer questions raised on social media at the apex court. Since last week, there has been abundant chatter on social media on whether or not the markets regulator has been investigating the Adani group or not. India’s Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, on behalf of the the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), on Wednesday clarified a number of facts around the markets regulator’s probe against the Adani group. In his submission to the Supreme Court, he said: “In order to bring abundant clarity to the issues raised in the social media comments, the following is submitted...” He explained that there was an erroneous linkage being made between SEBI’s 2016 GDR probe and the Adani group. Tushar Mehta has reiterated in the SC today, that the 2016 GDR matter was totally different, distinct, and completely separate from the 19th July 2021 reply by Minister of State for Finance to the Parliament, wherein he had said that SEBI was investigating some Adani group companies with regards to the minimum public shareholding norms. The SG’s submission gives an explanation on what SEBI is investigating and what it is not. In 2016, SEBI passed an order against 51 listed entities with regards to Global Depository Receipts. The submission made to the Supreme Court on Wednesday states: “No listed company of the Adani Group was part of the aforesaid list of 51 companies, which has been specifically stated in our rejoinder dated 15 May 2023 to the Honorable Supreme Court. However, there were some FPIs including Cresta Fund Limited, Albula Fund Limited and APMS Fund Limited, the relevant GDR accounts of which were frozen as a consequence of the 2016 order.” It has no relation and/or connection to the issues referred to and/or arising out of the Hindenburg Report but there are attempts to connect these two. In the matter pertaining to the minimum public shareholding norms, markets regulator has approached 11 overseas regulators under the Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding (“MMOU”) with the International Organization of Securities Commissions. SEBI has said that it has sought information from several global regulators under its MMOU. The first request to overseas regulators was made as early as 6 October 2020. Till date, there is no conclusion of any alleged wrong-doing in this matter as it is still under investigation. SEBI has informed the Supreme Court of India that it was investigating allegations made by Hindenburg Research in its report on Adani group. One of the allegations made by the research firm was non-compliance with minimum public shareholding norms. The regulator’s status report on the same has been submitted to the six-member expert committee appointed by the apex court.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarifies in Supreme Court SEBI’s 2016 GDR probe had nothing to do with listed Adani cos

<ul><li>The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> has given the Indian government till Thursday, October 1, to file an affidavit on whether interest and accruing interest on <keyword id="117489" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="moratorium">moratorium</keyword> loans should be charged. </li><li>During the last hearing earlier this month, <keyword id="576485" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Ashok-Bhushan">Justice Ashok Bhushan</keyword> said the bench is inclined to pass an order that interest on interest should not be charged on moratorium loans. </li><li>The matter will be heard again on October 5. Meanwhile, banks cannot designate accounts as non-performing until the matter is fully resolved. </li></ul>The issue of accruing interest on loans that opted for the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) moratorium still hangs in the balance. The Supreme Court has given the government another three days, till Thursday October 1, to file their affidavit in consultation with the RBI and the Ministry of Finance. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="77887333" title="Supreme Court says banks are free to restructure loans, but can't penalise borrowers availing moratorium benefit" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> "Little complex issue. Several economic issues are coming up," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan. For now, the matter has been adjourned and will commence again from Monday, October 5. Meanwhile, the interim orders issued by the Supreme Court stand — banks cannot declare accounts as non-performing assets (NPAs) <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/interim-relief-from-supreme-court-on-loan-moratorium-says-banks-must-not-declare-accounts-as-npas-for-two-months/articleshow/77910763.cms">until the matter is resolved. </a> “With respect to interest we have yet to take a decision but on the aspect of debiting interest on interest, we are inclined to pass an order that it may not be debited,” said Justice Ashok Bhushan during the previous hearing. “Whatever you come with must be very clear,” Justice Shah told SG Mehta. According to Mehta, a committee has been formed at the “highest levels” to decide on the issue of moratorium extension, interest during the moratorium, interest on interest, and other issues related to the moratorium period. The bench informed Mehta that all decisions taken by the RBI, the Indian government and the state banks should be placed before the courts for consideration at the next hearing. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/kamath-committee-outlines-loan-restructuring-parameters-for-26-sectors/articleshow/77989911.cms">Kamath Committee outlines loan restructuring parameters for 26 sectors</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/interim-relief-from-supreme-court-on-loan-moratorium-says-banks-must-not-declare-accounts-as-npas-for-two-months/articleshow/77910763.cms">Interim relief from Supreme Court on loan moratorium — says banks must not declare accounts as NPAs for two months</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/supreme-court-says-banks-are-free-to-restructure-loans-but-cant-penalise-borrowers-availing-moratorium-benefit/articleshow/77887333.cms">Supreme Court says banks are free to restructure loans, but can't penalise borrowers availing moratorium benefit</a>

Loan moratorium — Supreme Court gives government till Thursday to file affidavit, next hearing scheduled for October 5

New Delhi [India], November 24 (ANI): Hearing the Adani-Hindenburg matter, the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday remarked that it is easy to make allegations against anyone and opined the petitioners to show some responsibility while levelling charges against any party. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the remarks when one of the petitioners raised questions over members of the expert committee. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, told the court about one of the members of the expert committee Somashekhar Sundaresan, noting that he has been a lawyer representing Adin various forums including in the SEBI Board. CJI DY Chandrachud raised an objection to the petitioner's submission and remarked that if one goes with the theory that a lawyer who appeared 17 years ago can now not be appointed to the committee and like this, no lawyer who has appeared for an accused should become a High Court judge. CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that he is not an in-house counsel he was a lawyer and he appeared in 2006 and this conflict arose 17 years later. There has to be some responsibility for the allegations being levelled, SC remarked. During the hearing, the court also remarked that it is easy to make allegations and one must be also very careful. "We are not giving a character certificate to anyone," SC noted. When the hearing commenced today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the top court that SEBI is not seeking an extension of further investigation matters relating to the Hindenburg report. Out of 24 cases in the Adani-Hindenburg matter, investigations in 22 cases are over For the remaining two cases, they need information from foreign regulators and others and they have been in consultation with them, SG Mehta informed the court. The court then said that it had intervened in the matter due to the extreme volatility of the stock market and sought to know what is SEBI planning to do for such kind of volatility and planning to protect investors in cases like short selling. SG Tushar Mehta took the court through the recommendations of the Expert Committee which SEBI has agreed with in principle. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, told the SC that there were many factual revelations in the Hindenburg report. He raised doubts about SEBI's role in the matter and says a lot of information was available to it in 2014. Bhushan informed the SC about a letter written in 2014 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding substantial money siphoned to Mauritius. SG Mehta questioned Bhushan over this and said that DRI concluded the proceedings in 2017. The court remarked that to advocate Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, it is easy to make allegations and one must be also very careful. SG Tushar Mehta urged the top court to stop these kinds of allegations. The court remarked that SEBI, a statutory body looks into stock market frauds. SG Tushar Mehta said that there is a growing tendency to plant stories outside India to influence decisions within India. After hearing the matter in length, the court reserved the order on various aspects related to the issue. Earlier, the <keyword id="6355630" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="securities-and-exchange-board-of-india" source="Orion">Securities and Exchange Board of India</keyword> (SEBI) filed a status report before the Supreme Court apprising it that out of 24 investigations arising out of the Hindenburg report, 22 are final in nature and 2 are interim in nature. The investigation was carried out in compliance with the directions of the top court's order dated March 2, 2023, SEBI has investigated 24 matters. In the mid of May, the top court gave three months more time to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to conduct a probe into the Hindenburg report SEBI was granted time till 14th August 2023 to conduct the probe. On March 2, the <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword> directed the capital market regulator SEBI to investigate any violations of securities law by the <keyword id="6367820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="adani-group" source="Orion">Adani Group</keyword> in the wake of the Hindenburg report, which led to a massive wipeout of more than USD140 billion of the Adani Group's market value. Supreme Court, on March 2, set up an expert committee on the issue arising from the <keyword id="9916845" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="hindenburg-research" source="Orion">Hindenburg Research</keyword> report on Adani Group companies. The committee will consist of six members, headed by former apex court judge Justice AM Sapre. The top court had then asked SEBI to file a status report within two months. The apex court was then hearing petitions pertaining to the Hindenburg report, including the constitution of a committee relating to regulatory mechanisms to protect investors' interests. The January 24 Hindenburg report alleged stock manipulation and fraud by the conglomerate. The Adani Group has attacked Hindenburg as "an unethical short seller", stating that the report by the New York-based entity was "nothing but a lie". A short-seller in the securities market books gains from the subsequent reduction in the prices of shares. (ANI)

Adani-Hindenburg case: Easy to make allegations, can't take unsubstantiated ones, remarks SC

<ul><li>The Centre on Monday told the Delhi High Court that marriage between same sex couples was "not permissible" as it is not recognised by "our laws, legal system, society and our values".</li><li>The submission was made before a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta during hearing of a PIL seeking a declaration that same sex marriages be recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and Special Marriage Act.</li><li>The petition has contended that despite the Supreme Court decriminalizing consensual homosexual acts, marriages between same sex couples was still not possible.</li></ul> The Centre on Monday told the Delhi High Court that marriage between same sex couples was "not permissible" as it is not recognised by "our laws, legal system, society and our values". The submission was made before a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta during hearing of a PIL seeking a declaration that same sex marriages be recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and Special Marriage Act. Mehta opposed the relief sought in the petition saying "our laws, our legal system, our society and our values do not recognise a marriage, which is a sacrament, between same sex couples". He said the plea to grant recognition to or permit registration of such marriages was "not permissible" for two reasons -- firstly, the petition was asking the court to legislate and secondly, any relief granted "would run contrary to various statutory provisions". "Unless court does violence to various laws, this cannot be done," he added. Mehta also said that under the HMA, the various provisions regulating marriages or prohibited relationships talk of husband and wife and therefore, who would be assigned these roles where a same sex couple was concerned. The bench observed that the world over things were changing, but it may or may not be applicable to India. It, however, questioned the need for a PIL in the instant case, saying the people who claim to be affected are well educated and can themselves approach the court. "Why should we entertain the PIL," it added. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the affected people were not coming forward themselves as they feared reprisals and therefore, a PIL was preferred.It asked the lawyer appearing for the petitioner, Abhijit Iyer Mitra, to give details of the persons who were not permitted to register their <keyword id="21204" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Same-sex-marriage">same sex marriage</keyword>. With the direction to place these factual aspects before the court, the bench listed the matter for further hearing on October 21. The petition has contended that despite the Supreme Court decriminalizing consensual homosexual acts, marriages between same sex couples was still not possible. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/hcl-tech-share-price-jumps-after-mid-quarter-guidance-pulling-tcs-infosys-wipro-and-tech-mahindra-in-the-green-along-with-it/articleshow/78103743.cms">HCL Tech's mid-quarter guidance optimism sparks rally in TCS, Infosys, Wipro, and Tech Mahindra too</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/heres-a-look-at-indias-first-parliament-session-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/slidelist/78102610.cms">From staggered seating to masks all around — Here’s a look at India’s first Parliament session during the COVID-19 pandemic</a>

Indian laws, legal system, society and values do not recognise same-sex marriage, Centre tells Delhi High Court

<ul><li>The Supreme Court bench led by Justice Arun Mishra turned the heat on the government and telecom companies’ counsels during the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues cases hearing today.</li><li>Questioning the reliability of <keyword id="1553175" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Vodafone-Idea">Vodafone Idea</keyword>, Justice Mishra asked the company’s counsel “How do we catch hold of you”, after calling it a foreign company.</li><li>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also bore the brunt of Justice Mishra’s annoyance, and was told “your hands will be cut short”.</li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/">Check out the latest news and updates on Business Insider.</a></li></ul>Vodafone Idea and Airtel want to pay the unpaid spectrum licence fees and usage charges. But even as they hoped that the Supreme Court of India would concede this reprieve, the Justices Arun Mishra-led bench posed a series of thorny questions. “We want to catch hold of you (Vodafone). There’s so much liability on you. How should we catch hold of you?” asked Justice Arun Mishra and followed it up with a barb that it is a foreign company. Interestingly, Vodafone Idea’s shares ended the session 1% higher, and Airtel closed up 2%, while the judges put the companies in a tough spot at court. <div type="image" title="Vodafone Idea Airtel share price" msid="77067486" hostid="261" caption="&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Share price of Vodafone Idea and Airtel in the last one week&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;"></div> Vodafone Idea counsel Mukul Rohatgi had a tough time fending off these barbs from the top court hearing the case on adjusted gross revenue (AGR). The Supreme Court in February this year <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/birla-meets-telecom-secy-as-voda-idea-stares-at-over-rs-53000-cr-agr-dues/articleshow/74193134.cms">ordered</a> telecom companies to pay up a disputed amount retrospectively for over a decade. Since then, the appeal has been pending the apex courts’ verdict. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="76440420" title="Vodafone Idea says it’s ‘barely afloat’, appeals Supreme Court to stagger spectrum payments over 20 years" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> <table style="border-width: initial; border-style: none;"><colgroup></colgroup><col /><col /><tbody><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-right:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 0.5pt;vertical-align:bottom;padding:0pt 5.75pt 0pt 5.75pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Company </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-right:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 0.5pt;vertical-align:bottom;padding:0pt 5.75pt 0pt 5.75pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">AGR demand (in crore) </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-right:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:bottom;background-color:#d9d9d9;padding:0pt 5.75pt 0pt 5.75pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Vodafone Idea </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-right:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:bottom;background-color:#d9d9d9;padding:0pt 5.75pt 0pt 5.75pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">₹58,254 </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-right:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-top:solid #000000 0.5pt;vertical-align:bottom;padding:0pt 5.75pt 0pt 5.75pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Airtel </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-right:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 0.5pt;border-top:solid #000000 0.5pt;vertical-align:bottom;padding:0pt 5.75pt 0pt 5.75pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">₹43,980 </td></tr></tbody></table> Why is the court so apprehensive about Vodafone-Idea being able to repay the dues? Vodafone Idea is the most troubled of all telecom operators in India. The company just posted a ₹73,878 crore loss in just three months, a record for any Indian corporate. The counsel Rohatgi also went on to say that the only asset left with the company is the spectrum. Yet, Rohatgi highlighted that the company had already coughed up ₹7,854 crore, on account of AGR, despite the mounting losses and tax refunds pending from the government to the tune of ₹8,000 crore. But the court was more keen on knowing how the company owned by the Aditya Birla Group in India plans to repay the remaining ₹50,339 crore. In the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/vodafone-idea-shares-plunge-over-6-after-supreme-court-asks-for-an-undertaking-to-cough-up-53000-crore/articleshow/76317790.cms">previous hearing held on June 18</a>, the Supreme Court bench led by Justice Arun Mishra asked Vodafone Idea, Airtel and other telcos to submit their books of accounts and other financial documents for the past 10 years. This time, too, he reminded both Airtel and Vodafone Idea that he could order that any time now. Even the government faces the heat Turning the heat on the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta who represents the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Justice Mishra <a href="https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1285149179950530562">said</a>, “We will reject everything and ask everyone to pay right now. Why are these self-assessments being done?”. Justice Mishra also appeared annoyed with the SG, <a href="https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1285149567164379137">saying</a>, “You are the solicitor general and you cannot do this. You cannot commit contempt on this court? What is this nonsense?”. “Do not think you have very big hands. We will cut it short,” Justice Mishra was also <a href="https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1285151066980409345">quoted</a> as saying by Bar &amp; Bench. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/vodafone-idea-shares-plunge-over-6-after-supreme-court-asks-for-an-undertaking-to-cough-up-53000-crore/articleshow/76317790.cms">Vodafone Idea shares plunge over 13% after Supreme Court asks for an undertaking to cough up ₹53,000 crore</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/markets/news/a-deal-with-google-is-not-the-only-lifeline-vodafone-idea-is-betting-on/articleshow/76086104.cms">A deal with Google is not the only lifeline Vodafone Idea is betting on</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/vodafone-idea-and-its-timeline-of-woes/articleshow/74577942.cms">Vodafone Idea and its timeline of woes</a>

You Searched For "sg tushar mehta" and got 7 results

Menace of street dogs discussed in Supreme Court; SG Mehta calls it 'serious issue'

ANI

Sebi 'fully equipped', could set up a panel of experts: Centre to SC on Adani issue

IANS

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarifies in Supreme Court SEBI’s 2016 GDR probe had nothing to do with listed Adani cos

Malini Bhupta

Loan moratorium — Supreme Court gives government till Thursday to file affidavit, next hearing scheduled for October 5

Prabhjote Gill

Adani-Hindenburg case: Easy to make allegations, can't take unsubstantiated ones, remarks SC

ANI

Indian laws, legal system, society and values do not recognise same-sex marriage, Centre tells Delhi High Court

PTI

'How do we catch hold of you' – India's Supreme Court asks Vodafone Idea and that was just one of the many barbs

Rounak Jain