BIG win for Vodafone as Permanent Court of Arbitration issued an unanimous decision, holding India to be in breach of the ‘fair and equitable’ treatment obligations under the BIT.
The lawyers for Vodafone are Harish Salve and the team of DMD Advocates (Anuradha Dutt (in picture), Feresthe Sethna, Haaris Fazili and Kunal Dutt)
Decision:
1) Tribunal has jurisdiction 2) Vodafone is entitled to fair and equitable treatment laid down in the Article 4(1) of the Agreement 3) Government of India's conduct is a BREACH of GUARANTEE under Article 4(1)
Govt of India has to pay 40 crores+ as costs to Vodafone
Government of India will reimburse Vodafone a sum of £4,327,294.50 which is 60% of legal costs of Vodafone and 3,000 Euros which is 50% of costs borne by Vodafone to the Appointing Authority.
[FULL STORY] PCA has ruled in favour of Vodafone with respect to the Indian government's retrospective tax claim of ~ $5.5 billion together with penalty & interest (~Rs 40,000 Crores) stemming from the company's acquisition of Hutch in 2007. #Vodafone
[Case of rape of a four year old girl in Ghaziabad]
Sr Adv N Hariharan: They have dragged father and wants to record Sextion 164 croc statement. If investigation is complete then why to record it now. You say chargesheet is filed and now this. Police man can be seen dragging the father. The father is right here. He was asked not to change the statement. If trial is there then he will be summoned. He was dragged by police..these two hospitals have filed affidavits saying the child was alive..where is the need for coercion.
Hariharan: As far as this situation is concerned. The investigation officers etc are behaving very differently. Not a single person examined in the hospital. Why is it that they are shielding the hospital. This requires a probe
Hariharan: no medical attention was given to the child. They had the facilities.
CJI: records indicate as alleged by the father of the child is duly noticed in our earlier order. Petitioner grievance has been that their needs to be fair probe and that there is negligence on part of local police and two private hospitals.
Supreme Court to hear the West Bengal SIR case today. With phase 1 of the polling over, the court is likely to witness mentions concerning non inclusion of voters, incidents of violence, and the functioning of appellate tribunals
#SupremeCourt @MamataOfficial #WestBengalLegislativeAssemblyelection2026 #SIR @abhishekaitc @ECISVEEP @BJP4Bengal
NIA submits it's first report in the suo motu case concerning attack on west bengal SIR judicial officers
ASG SAV Raju: Give us time for chargesheet. They are neck deep in investigation
CJI: we are granting.
Sr Adv Kalyan Banerjee: Only 136 appeals have been disposed off out of 27 lakhs filed. This is very very sad.
#Breaking
Delhi court orders FIR against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra for objectionable posts about Newslaundry’ Manisha Pande and other journalists.
@Iyervval @MnshaP @newslaundry
The court says that Iyer-Mitta made sexually coloured remarks against Pande and other journalists and the same are prima facie intended to insult Pande and she has been named in the tweet as well.
“Therefore, on perusal of
the application and the material placed on record by the
complainant, this Court is of the view that the content of the
tweets posted by the accused on “X” platform discloses
commission of cognizable offences under section 75(3) and 79 of
BNS,” the court says.
“This Court is of the view that police investigation is necessary as the offence has been committed in cyber space on platform "X". Therefore, police investigation is necessary to verify the user account on platform "X" from which the said tweets were published. Further police investigation is also necessary to trace and recover the computer source/electronic device from which the said tweets were published. This Court is also of the view that the Action Taken Report which was filed by PSI Ombir in the present case is not satisfactory as the above stated tweets were not considered in the report,” the court adds.
Delhi High Court seeks response of YouTuber Shamita Yadav on the contempt petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia over defamatory content on social media concerning his appearance on a TV news show.
Bhatia appeared in person to argue his case - it is imperative to note that attacking the dignity of person using obscene and sexually suggestive language under free speech cannot be permissible under any circumstances.
Bhatia - She is repeatedly using the terms “nanga” and “bhajpille”. She is aware that there is a case filed agasint her also. She starts by saying, defamation case on me? She uses obnoxious words, she being a lady. She is an officer of the court as well. She also has to maintain dignity.
Delhi HC to hear today a plea seeking contempt of court action against Arvind Kejriwal, AAP leaders and journalist Ravish Kumar for allegedly publishing the video recording of court proceedings when Kejriwal argued before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
CJ Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and J Tejas Karia to hear the case.
@AamAadmiParty @ArvindKejriwal @Vaiibbhav
The petition has been filed as a PIL by advocate Vaibhav Singh.
Apart from Kejriwal and Kumar, action has been sought against Digvijay Singh, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh Sanjeev Jha, Purandeep Sawhney, Jarnail Singh, Mukesh Ahlawat and Vinay Mishra.
The plea also seek removal of those videos from social media platforms.