Supreme Court Bench headed by CJI SA Bobde is hearing a plea by Tata Group challenging the pledging of its shares by Cyrus Mistry's Shapoorji Pallonji group in order to raise funds.
Senior Counsel Aryama Sundaram for Mistry tells the Court that in the present application, Tata is attempting to stop SP group from pledging the shares.
SC asks Senior Advocates appearing for all the parties when the matter can be heard for final hearing, proposes taking up the case after four weeks for final hearing.
Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas for Cyrus Mistry argues that the application needs to be heard.
Dwarkadas highlights that salaries of employees and migrant workers need to be paid and disbursed.
Sundaram for SP group argues that the sole ground for Tata Group challenging the pledging of the shares by SP is one Article in the Articles of Association which bars transfer of shares without giving Tata a Right of First Refusal.
Sundaram: We are pledging, the shares are not being transferred.
CJI Bobde: This argument has been made several years ago also in relation to leases.
(Dwarkadas also backs Sundaram's arguments)
CJI Bobde: We have seen pledging is limited transfer.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve for Tata Group: There is a mischief they are playing. They want to sell the shares, if they want to sell, I am ready to buy, but then they say they want to hold on to the shares.
Salve: If they pledge the shares and Bank places them on the block and a potential buyer offers a premium, then I will have to match that price. This is the mischief they are playing.
CJI Bobde: We are only asking you all to wait for 4 weeks and make the arguments then
(Sundaram informs the Court that the restructuring of the company is scheduled for Thursday)
CJI Bobde: If Mr. Sundaram and Mr. Dwarkadas are not ready to hold their horses and are not agreeable to wait for four weeks, then we will have to hear Mr. Salve and Dr. Singhvi.
#SupremeCourt hears plea by BRS President and former Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao challenging the Telangana High Court's decision to dismiss his petition against a commission formed by the state government
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Plain case of political vendetta. Every time the government changes there is a case against the former chief minister
CJI DY Chandrachud: we will clarify that by calling it judicial enquiry they cannot take it outside the scope of the commission @TSwithKCR
Rohatgi: you cannot fix responsibility in a fact finding commission. This was for approval of tariff ..there was a power crisis and thus state bought power from state of chhatisgarh and thus the PPA needed approval from Chhattisgarh state commission and Telangana state commission.
Supreme Court DISMISSES plea by Deputy CM of Karantaka DK Shivakumar to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
Trivedi J: How High Can stay the sanction order granted by government? This is unheard of.
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): That is withdrawn already.
Trivedi J to State: That is different thing but how High Court can grant such order?
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): We are on a new question, the ground is this court has held that if the predicate offence is only conspiracy, it cannot be a stand alone offence and it has to be added by some other offence as well. I am questioning the FIR lodged by CBI which is completely illegal. I am not on any part by ED. I am on the FIR dated 3.10.20 under PC Act by CBI. Section 17A which has come in 2018 requirement has not been fulfilled (referring to split verdict of Justice Trivedi and Justice Bopanna)
Trivedi J: We cannot quash the case on the basis of split verdict by this court.
Senior Adv Rohatagi: But one judge has ruled in our favor.
Trivedi J: So what, that cannot be the basis of quashing. No quashing at all.
Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on Thursday (June 20). The High Court put an interim stay on his bail the next day, after ED challenged the order.
On the same day, Justice Jain reserved his verdict on ED's stay application.
Delhi High Court orders removal of tweets by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma abused Nayak on live-television.
High Court holds that Congress leaders over-sensationalised the incident and did not remain truthful.
"It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of Speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an oversensationalization and depiction of facts which are patently false," the court said.