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
#SupremeCourt is hearing plea challenging Karnataka HC dismissal to petitions challenging State government's decision to withdraw consent for CBI probe into corruption allegations against Congress leader & Deputy CM DK Shivakumar @CBIHeadquarters @DKShivakumar
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
On August 29, the Karnataka High Court rejected two petitions filed by CBI & BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal challenging Congress-led Karnataka government's decision to rescind consent for probe against Kumar
@BasanagoudaBJP
"If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will ask government to block Wikipedia in India."
Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to Wikipedia for not complying with the Court's order directing it to disclose info about people who made edits on ANI's Wikipedia page.
@Wikipedia @ANI
ANI has sued Wikipedia for defamation.
The news agency has said that Wikipedia allowed defamatory edits on its page which referred to ANI as the "propaganda tool" for the present government.
HC had ordered Wikipedia to provide subscriber details to ANI of three people who made edits on its page.
Today, ANI filed a contempt application in the High Court alleging that the order has not been complied with.
#SupremeCourt bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud hears the case of ABP news channel against the case it faces for airing interview of dreaded criminal and gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, prime suspects in the Sidhu Moose Wala murder case
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: This is Article 19(1)(a) case and the HC order has a chilling effect on free speech. This is investigative journalism and nothing else. The journalist knows that phones are readily available in the jails. He used his sources and conducted the interview.
Rohatgi: HC was just considering how inmates get such benefits and someone pointed out the interview. The HC then directed FIR against the journalist. This is killing the messenger and then who will expose the rot? this is the state of investigative journalism!
CJI: the fact remains that you gained access to the jail and publish an interview in TV channel, whose permission did you take? we see the broader point of 19(1)(a)... but there are restrictions by virtue of incarceration...
Rohatgi: if at all this case has to go on then let it to go to CBI. how can the punjab police look into this at all ?
#Supremecourt
Supreme Court to hear suo motu case in connection with the rape and murder case in which a 31-year-old resident doctor was found dead at the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal.
Supreme Court to hear suo motu case in connection with the rape and murder case in which a 31-year-old resident doctor was found dead at the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal.
#MadrasHighCourt while hearing petition challenging detention of YouTuber #SavukkuShankar under #GoondasAct asks Tamil Nadu authorities:
"How many people are telling lies in TV channels and media? All the similar cases, where some information is provided on corruption or something, have you arrested? How many persons?"
Justice SM Subramaniam: Is it possible for government to run behind all such persons spreading false news? Only if it affects public order (you can invoke preventive detention) … How it (Savukku Shankar’s comments) affected public order?
#MadrasHighCourt #SavakkuShankar
Justice Subramaniam: It is the person who views YouTube – it his basic right (choose what to see). Can you stop your thought process?
YouTube may have good and bad videos, a person has a right to choose what to watch, Judge adds.