SC pulls up Centre, telecos for self-assessment of AGR dues fixed by court

The Supreme Court Wednesday pulled up the Centre and telecom companies for doing self-assessment or reassessment of the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues fixed by the apex court in its verdict given on October 24 last year.

The top court, which was also anguished by frequently published newspaper articles on the AGR issue, said all Managing Directors of telecom companies will be personally responsible and will be held for contempt of court for any such future newspaper articles.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, S A Nazeer and M R Shah refused to take up the Centre's plea for allowing telecom companies to pay AGR dues in 20 years, saying the application will be taken up after two weeks.

SC to hear Shaheen Bagh matter on March 23; asks people to cool down

The Supreme Court has fixed March 23 as the date for further hearing in the Shaheen Bagh road blockade matter. The apex court refused to pass an interim order. The court was hearing pleas seeking removal of anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protesters from Delhi's Shaheen Bagh area.

The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph said thay while the incidents of violence in Delhi are "unfortunate", the Court will not expand the scope of the case before it which pertains specifically to blocking of road on account of Shaheen Bagh protest.

SC said it is time for everyone to cool down and that protestors need to find an alternative area to sit for protests. The bench said it will examine the interlocutor's report in the meanwhile.

Thousands of people, including a large number of Muslim women, have been staging a sit-in protest at Shaheen Bagh area since mid-December last year against the CAA and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC).

The apex court had adjourned the hearing in the matter after the interlocutors appointed by it submitted their report in a sealed cover on Monday.

The two amicus curiae submitted their report in a sealed cover to the apex court. "We will go through the report," Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had said.

The Supreme Court-appointed mediators — senior advocates Sanjay Hegde and Sadhana Ramachandran — had last week engaged with the anti-CAA protestors for shifting the venue from Shaheen Bagh.

The top court had last week appointed senior advocates -- Sanjay Hedge, Sadhana Ramachandran and former bureaucrat Wajahat Habibullah -- as interlocutors to talk to the protestors here and urge them to clear the road and protest at an alternate site.

SC upholds permission to Torrent Gas for CGD infra in Chennai, Tiruvallur

In a major relief to an Ahmedabad-based city gas distribution (CGD) player, the Supreme Court recently upheld Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB)'s authorisation to Torrent Gas to lay the CGD infrastructure in Chennia and Tiruvallur districts in Tamil Nadu.

The judgment came in the form of dismissal of Adani Gas Limited's (AGL) appeal challenging such authorisation to Torrent Gas.

Following an international competitive bidding process on September 7, 2018, PNGRB had authorised Torrent Gas to lay the CGD infrastructure to provide Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Piped Natural Gas (PNG) in the districts of Chennai and Tiruvallur.

However, Adani Gas challenged the same on the ground that the bid of Torrent Gas was unreasonably high and PNGRB ought to have rejected the bid.

In its February 17 order, the apex court held that the power to determine the reasonability of the bids resides solely with the PNGRB by virtue of Clause 14.2 of the bid document. While dismissing AGL's plea, SC also held that PNGRB’s determination on reasonability was neither arbitrary nor in violation of the principles of natural justice.

With Chennai and Tiruvallur arguably the only metro regions in the country where CGD infrastructure does not exist to date, the judgment paves way for the same to be laid by Torrent Gas, part of the Rs 21,000 crore Torrent Group which has strong presence in pharmaceuticals and power, as well.

SC orders interim stay on NCLAT order on Orchid Pharma resolution process

The Supreme Court has ordered an interim stay on the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT’s) ruling on the resolution of debt-ridden Orchid Pharma.

The NCLAT in November set aside the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT’s) approval of a resolution plan by Gurgaon-based Dhanuka Laboratories for Orchid and remitted the matter to the NCLT, observing that it quoted an amount below the liquidation value and could not be approved.

State Bank of India, which is an important member in the Committee of Creditors (CoC), filed the appeal with the Supreme Court to set aside the NCLAT order, alleging that the appellate tribunal erred in overriding the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

A majority of the committee members had approved Dhanuka’s plan. The NCLAT passed the order based on an appeal by Accord Life Spec, part of the Rs 1,700-crore Accord Group, established by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader and former Union minister of state S Jagathrakshakan, whose resolution plan was rejected by the NCLT, Chennai, while approving Dhanuka’s plan.

Confirming that the Supreme Court has issued an interim stay on the NCLAT order, Vipin Warrier, partner of law firm India Law LLP, who has been advising and representing the resolution professional, said a possibility that could have followed the NCLAT order was the liquidation of Orchid Pharma, which would have affected all the stakeholders, including around 1,400 employees of the company. He said the apex court had issued notice to the respondents — Accord Life Spec, Orchid Pharma, and Dhanuka Laboratories — and it was returnable in four weeks.

Orchid Pharma owes banks more than Rs 3,000 crore. Earlier, the NCLT nullified a resolution plan by US-based Ingen Capital after it was approved since the investor allegedly did not bring in money in accordance with the norms.

Accord, in its appeal at the NCLAT, alleged that Dhanuka’s actual resolution value proposed was Rs 570 crore as against liquidation value of Rs 1,309 crore. It requested the appellate tribunal to set aside the NCLT decision approving Dhanuka’s plan. It has also filed another appeal against the NCLT’s decision to reject Accord’s plan.

The NCLAT dismissed the second appeal. The resolution plan submitted by Accord was also less than the liquidation value.

The NCLT, in its order in June, this year, said while Dhanuka’s resolution plan value was Rs 570 crore, which is lower than the liquidation value of Rs 1,309 crore (according to the resolution professional's explanation), Orchid Pharma had a cash and bank balance of Rs 321.98 crore. This and some factors brought the plan value to around Rs 1,116.04 crore, close to the liquidation value.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Easing of IBC deadline to serve interests of public, debtor: MCA secretary

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has found comfort in the fact that the Supreme Court has not struck down the 330-day timeframe for completing the insolvency resolution process, but has simply done away with the “mandatory” clause for following the deadline.

“We respect the SC verdict. If there are extraordinary circumstances and it is in the interests of the corporate debtor and public, then the adjudicating authority can take some more time,” Injeti Srinivas, corporate affairs secretary, told Business Standard. The government, in the Budget session of Parliament, had passed several amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). That included bringing in a 330-day deadline for the insolvency resolution process while counting the time taken for litigation as well. Before that, a 270-day window was available for resolution, excluding the litigation process.

The top court called the amendment an “excessive and unreasonable restriction on the litigant’s right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution”. According to the verdict, the amendment goes against Article 14 of the Constitution, which says that the state cannot deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

“If the provision is struck down in its entirety, it would throw the baby out with the bath water, as the time taken in legal proceedings is certainly an important factor,” said Anshul Jain, partner, PwC India.

As of June 2019, there were 1,292 ongoing corporate insolvency cases, of which 335 had exceeded the 330-day limit, according to government data.

While a grace period of 90 days was given to such cases, the committee of creditors (CoC) can seek further extension after the permission of the adjudicating authority to avoid "compulsory liquidation."

The Supreme Court said in its order that the time taken in legal proceedings was largely due to tardy processes at the adjudicating authority or the appellate tribunal and not due to any fault of the litigants.

The Supreme Court ruled that if it could be shown to the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal that only a short period was left for completion of the insolvency resolution process beyond 330 days, it would be in the interest of all stakeholders that the corporate debtor be put back on its feet instead of being sent into liquidation.

The corporate affairs secretary also said the SC ruling had addressed all concerns of the government. “It clearly lays down the jurisdictions of the adjudicating authority and the committee of creditors. It states that you cannot substitute the commercial wisdom of the CoC on your own.”

The government, while introducing the IBC amendments, had said time was of essence for IBC’s success as the cost of delay was huge.

The statement of object and reasons for IBC amendments said the delays due to “extensive litigation” may hamper value maximisation which goes against the spirit of the Code.

“Without strict timelines, there will be no pressure on the committee of creditors. While you cannot put a deadline on courts, the CoC has to ensure that it comes up with bidding plans and takes a call on them in a timely manner,” a senior lawyer said.

Supreme Court to pronounce verdict in Sabrimala review petition on Thursday

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking re-examination of its decision to allow entry of women of all age group in Kerala's Sabarimala Temple.

The apex court will deliver its judgement on as many as 65 petitions -- including 56 review petitions and four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleas -- which were filed after its verdict sparked violent protests in Kerala.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had reserved its decision on February 6 after hearing various parties including those seeking re-consideration of the September 28, 2018 judgement.

Other members of the bench are justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

The apex court, by a majority verdict of 4:1, on September 38, 2018, had lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the age of 10 and 50 from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Kerala and had held that this centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.

The five-judge constitution had heard the pleas in an open court and reserved its decision after hearing the parties, including Nair Service Society, Thantry of the temple, The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the state government, in favour and against the review plea.

SC to hear, decide sensitive cases like Ayodhya, Rafale on reopening

Upon reopening on July 1 after a six-week summer vacation, the Supreme Court will deal with very sensitive issues, including the Ayodhya land dispute, review pleas in Rafale case and the contempt case against Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing to the court his "chowkidar chor hai" slogan.

The top court, which would function with its full judicial strength of 31 judges under the stewardship of Chief Justice (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, is likely to deliver its verdict in the review pleas in Rafale case.

The petitions, including the one filed by ex-Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, and lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seek review of the apex court's December 14, 2018, judgment dismissing all pleas challenging procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.

Also, a three-judge bench headed by the CJI would decide the fate of BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi's contempt plea against Gandhi for wrongly attributing to the top court his "chowkidar chor hai" jibe against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Gandhi, however, has already tendered unconditional apology for it and sought closure of the case.

The outcome of the in-camera mediation proceedings, undertaken by a three-member panel headed by former apex court judge Justice F M I Kallifulla, to find an amicable solution to the politically-sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute, would be watched with bated breath.

The mediation committee, which also comprises spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, is "optimistic" about finding an amicable solution to the vexatious dispute. It has been granted time till August 15 by a five-judge bench headed by the CJI.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the SC against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be divided equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Besides these, the SC will have to deal with a PIL seeking a probe and lodging of an FIR against activist lawyers Indira Jaising, Anand Grover and their NGO 'Lawyers Collective' for allegedly violating rules relating to receipt and utilisation of foreign funds.

The PIL has been filed by 'Lawyers' Voice', a voluntary organisation of advocates.

The top court would also dealing with the PIL of lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the constitutional validity of Article 370, which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir and limits Parliament's power to make laws for the state.

The top court would also be dealing a host of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A, which provides special rights and privileges to natives of Jammu and Kashmir.

On February 11, the Jammu and Kashmir government had sought permission from the Supreme Court to circulate a letter to parties for adjourning the hearing on pleas saying that there was no "elected government" in the state.

SC issues notice to lawyer who claimed there was conspiracy to frame CJI

The Supreme Court Tuesday sought response from a lawyer, who had made a sensational claim that there was a conspiracy to make CJI Ranjan Gogoi resign by "framing him" in a false case of sexual harassment.

A three-judge special bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra issued notice to lawyer Utsav Singh Bains and sought his response with regard to his claim that he was also offered Rs 1.5 crore to represent a former apex court woman employee and arrange a presser against the CJI at the Press Club of India here.

The bench, which also comprised Justices R F Nariman and Deepak Gupta, has now fixed the case titled as a matter of "great public importance touching upon the independence of judiciary", for hearing tomorrow at 10:30 AM.

The lawyer had filed an affidavit on Monday following the unprecedented hearing on Saturday during which the CJI had said a larger conspiracy was behind it and that he would not stoop too low even to deny these allegations.

SC refuses listing of plea challenging HC order on TikTok app download

The Supreme Court Monday refused urgent listing of a plea challenging the recent Madras High Court order banning downloading of the 'TikTok' app over concerns of pornographic content.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the plea will come up for hearing in due course of time.

The Madras High Court had on April 3 directed the Centre to ban mobile application 'TikTok' as it voiced concern that "pornographic and inappropriate content" were made available through such apps.

It had passed the interim order on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition which sought to ban Tik Tok on the grounds that it allegedly contained content that "degraded culture and encouraged pornography".