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
Adv Prashant Bhushan: I appear for a disabled professor. This is a very important issue on free speech and how such stakeholders need to be taken into confidence while having consultations
SG Tushar Mehta: Right now we are not dealing with obscenity. But with perversity. Something needs to be done on user generated content. One can have his own @YouTube channel and....we cannot do everything and anything under the garb of free expression
CJI Surya Kant: It is strange that I create my own channel and keep doing things without being accountable. Yes free speech has to be protected ..suppose there is a program with adult content.. there can be warning in advance with parental control.
AG R Venkataramani: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is proposing to have a meeting. They will do everything possible to have a public consultation
CJI: if some provisions need to be incorporated or something needs amendment
SG: yea being considered. I had a word with the minister.
Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation counsel: Age classification and warnings are in place. There are Digital Media Ethics Code. This code is subjudice.. it was challenged before various HCs and union filed a transfer and it was transferred to Delhi HC and it is to be heard on January 8. This concerns content it Netflix etc. There are 27 petitions. There are Broadcast complaint commission headed by Justice Gita Mittal. Here the category is different. Here comments were made in a user generated content. Ministry has filed a note saying UGC guidelines they are thinking about.
CJI: what is the single instance of penalty or action ? Self styled bodies will not help..some autonomous bodies are free from the influence from those who are exploit all of this and the state also... as a regulatory measure.
Supreme Court to hear petitions challenging SIR in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Puducherry
#SIR #SupremeCourt
CJI Kant: Tamil Nadu SIR matter will be on Monday. Kerala SIR issue is for deferment of SIR since local body elections are on
Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi: Plea was first before Madras HC. State election commission had said they are not facing any issues. ECI and SEC are coordinating. 99 percent voters have got forms, more than 50 percent are digitised.
CJI Kant: File separate status report for Kerala SIR.
Sr Adv Raju Ramachandran: Tamil Nadu issue is important. Cut off date is December 4.
CJI BR Gavai speaks a day before he demits office as 52nd Chief Justice of India
Q: Post retirement?
CJI: I have made it clear that I will not accept any post retirement opportunity. I will like to work for tribals. I will be in Delhi only primarily.
Transfers controversy?
CJI: We only made transfers when it was needed or guidance of senior judges were needed in that High Court. Some transfers were because of complaints were received but they were processed only after verification from the consultee judges.
Social media uproar?
CJI: What you don't say in court is put in your mouth. Some AI clip shows that the shoe missed Justice Vinod Chandran and touches me. Technology has advantages and disadvantages.
Supreme Court to resume hearing pleas by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and other accused seeking bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria
#SupremeCourt #UmarKhalid
Hearing begins
ASG SV Raju for Delhi Police: 53 people killed, more than 530 injured, there was a lot of violence. Petrol bombs were used, stones were pelted, sticks, acid like chemicals were used. Stones were pelted on a small contingent of policemen.
Supreme Court to continue hearing bail pleas by Umar Khalid and other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Delhi police to resume arguments today.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria
#SupremeCourt #UmarKhalid
-hearing begins-
ASG SV Raju: I had finished my submissions on parity. I was on the aspect of delay. There was delay even after the high court judgement.
Raju points to the counter affidavit filed by the Delhi police.
He says delay in trial proceedings are attributable to the accused. Highlights orders dated 7.8.25, 12.8.25, 3.9.25, 14.10.25 of the trial court saying adjournments were sought by the accused.
Raju: the trial court may be directed to expedite to proceedings. It’s not a ground to grant bail.
Justice Kumar: on what proposition are you relying on the Salim Khan judgement?
Raju: on delay. In para 13 it has been held that even if someone is in jail for 5 and a half years it’s not a ground to grant bail.
Justice Kumar: but in that case there was direct evidence
Raju: I also have evidence. I shall show to the Court. There’s so much of evidence.
Supreme Court resumes hearing plea seeking investigation into alleged financial irregularities and fund diversion by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd (IHFL), now renamed Sammaan Capital Ltd.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh
ASG SV Raju: your lordships had sought for the reports last time, I am ready with the reports.
Adv Prashant Bhushan: on the basis of SEBI affidavit this case is crying for an FIR. India bulls is a NBFC. They sent it to the NHB and MCA. Though MCA filed two affidavits before the high court, they don’t mention this before the high court. All that they say is yes certain violations have been noted and they have been compounded. Sameer Gehlot has fled the country. He has bought 5 star hotels, yachts, aircrafts there. SEBI has pointed out that there appears to be evergreening of loans. Shareholding of public is getting transferred to Sameer Gehlot. It needs a detailed investigation.
Justice Kant: very surprisingly CBI has a very cool kind of attitude in this case. We have never seen such a friendly approach by the CBI. This is ultimately public money. There is strong element of public interest. Even if 10% allegations are correct still there are large scale transactions which can be dubbed as dubious. You register an FIR. It will strengthen the hands of the ED, SFIO etc. whoever has to investigate. Why is the MCA indulging in closing the investigation like this? What is their interest in this?