Supreme Court issues notice on PIL seeking display of detailed info about sellers, service providers
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya seeking a declaration that every consumer has right to know not only about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard, manufacturing as well as expiry date and certification of goods and products, but also about the details of the distributer, dealer, trader, seller and shop owner to seek redressal against unfair trade practices, restrictive trade practices and unscrupulous exploitation.
The plea also sought a direction that every distributor, dealer, trader, seller and shop owner display full details of registration or license, including name, address, number of employees and phone number at the entry gate in bold letters on a display board visible to an ordinary person.
It said that the 'Right to Know' about sellers and service providers is secured under the Consumer Protection Act, read with Article 19 of the Constitution.
'Therefore, every consumer has the right to access details of product, service, as well as distributor, dealer, trader, seller and shop owner before making a purchase,' stated the plea.
It added that 'Right to Know' is crucial for consumers to make informed choices and to protect themselves from unfair and restrictive trade practices and unscrupulous exploitation. As per the petition, 'Right to Know' helps consumers avoid falling prey to fraudulent or deceptive distributors, dealers, traders, sellers and shop owners, who might misrepresent products/services or disappear after sale, purchase and money transaction.
The petitioner claimed that while travelling to Haridwar, he found many motels, restaurants and eateries on the Delhi-Haridwar highway, which were not displaying their registration, owner's name, address and contact number, and this is happening pan India.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC refuses to pass order on rally near state secretariat on first anniversary of RG Kar rape-murder
Kolkata, The Calcutta High Court on Thursday did not pass any interim order in a petition against a proposed protest rally near the West Bengal state secretariat 'Nabanna' on August 9. HC refuses to pass order on rally near state secretariat on first anniversary of RG Kar rape-murder On this day last year, the body of an on-duty doctor was found raped and murdered inside the state-run R G Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, sparking outrage nationwide. The court observed that the persons participating in the rally should protest peacefully as law-abiding citizens and not cause any harm to the police or government authorities, buildings and public properties. While not granting any interim relief as prayed for against the rally, a division bench presided by Justice Sujoy Paul said it will be open for the West Bengal government to implement a prohibitory order imposed in the area near Nabanna and inform the organisers about adequate alternative places for protest. The Kolkata Police arrested one person, and the CBI, which took over the investigation on a Calcutta High Court order, also made him the sole accused in the RG Kat rape-murder case. The trial court on January 20 sentenced the accused Sanjay Roy to life imprisonment till death. The central agency is continuing its investigation into the alleged conspiracy angle of the case. The court on Thursday noted that Article 51A of the Constitution contemplates that it is the duty of every citizen to "Safeguard public property and to abjure violence. The bench, also comprising Justice Smita Das De, directed that the state file a report, if any, in four weeks and the reply affidavit by the petitioner in 15 days therefrom. The court directed that the matter will come up for hearing again thereafter. The petitioner, a resident of Howrah city, sought issuance of an order prohibiting the state from allowing any rally or demonstration in the surrounding areas of the state secretariat. He also prayed that a direction be issued to the government for framing proper guidelines for ensuring public peace, safety and convenience during any such protest. The petitioner's lawyer submitted that following the gruesome crime at R G Kar hospital, a rally took place last year near Nabanna which created chaos and untoward incidents had taken place. Claiming that the protest is being projected on social media in the name of "Parents of RG Kar Student victim", the petitioner prayed that such a protest be prohibited by issuing an interim order. Appearing for the state, Advocate General Kishore Dutta argued that last year's protest march over the issue took an ugly shape and about 47 police personnel were injured. The AG also stated that government properties were destroyed and in this backdrop, it is better if the protest takes place in an alternative place in Howrah city and suggested three other locations - Mandirtala bus station, Howrah Maidan and under Bankim Setu flyover. During the course of hearing, both the petitioner and the state submitted that although the right to protest is a fundamental right under the Constitution, there must be some balancing of fundamental rights. The court noted that the Howrah police commissioner has invoked prohibitory orders under section 163 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita . "In our opinion, the government is best suited to take care of law and order situation," the bench observed. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Bhushan Power insolvency: Lenders seek interest, Ebitda gains from JSW Steel
New Delhi: Lenders of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL), during a hearing in the Supreme Court on Thursday, sought recovery of interest and Ebitda earned by JSW Steel Ltd during the former's insolvency period. The demand was made during the rehearing of challenges to JSW Steel's ₹ 19,700 crore resolution plan. The Supreme Court had earlier recalled its 2 May judgment, which had cancelled the plan and ordered the liquidation of BPSL. The hearing will resume on Friday. 'Interest and Ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation) —these two things must come. There should be fairness for creditors because we are banks. We deal with public money,' said solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the lenders. Mehta did not specify the exact amount of interest and Ebitda that the lenders had sought for the insolvency period. According to JSW Steel's filings, BPSL contributes about 10% to its consolidated Ebitda and 12.5-13% to its 37.5 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) total steel-making capacity. JSW Steel, in its plea highlighted operational improvements at BPSL since acquiring the company in March 2021. Production capacity, it said, had nearly doubled from 2.3 MTPA in 2017 to 4.5 MTPA in 2025. Revenue rose from ₹ 8,701 crore in FY17 to ₹ 25,973 crore in FY25, with average annual exports of ₹ 2,976 crore over the past four years. During Thursday's hearing, former BPSL promoters, including Sanjay Singal, said if JSW's resolution plan is ultimately found flawed, BPSL should not be liquidated, but a fresh corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) be initiated to allow new bidders. The matter is being heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and justices Satish Chandra Sharma, and Vinod Chandran. Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing the promoters, argued that once the plan is approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Committee of Creditors (CoC) cannot reopen or alter it. 'The law is about legality, not profits,' Mehta said, arguing that post-approval improvements in the company's performance are irrelevant. SG Mehta firmly opposed the promoters' stand, accusing them of misusing company funds and being legally disqualified from re-entering the process. 'The law permits defaulting creditors, not defaulting promoters, to be part of CIRP. They may act as guarantors, but they have no right to question a resolution plan,' he stated. Petitions against JSW's resolution plan also came from dissenting financial creditors, including Kalyani Group's Torsteel, the State of Odisha, and former stakeholders. All cited delays in the implementation of the resolution plan and alleged irregularities in the process. On 31 July, the Supreme Court recalled its 2 May 2025 ruling, which had quashed JSW Steel's resolution plan and directed liquidation under Article 142 of the Constitution. The earlier ruling by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had stunned stakeholders by setting aside a fully approved and partially implemented resolution plan. The recall came after the Court acknowledged possible misapplication of IBC principles and reliance on factual inaccuracies and arguments not raised during original hearings. JSW Steel acquired Bhushan Power & Steel through a corporate insolvency process initiated in July 2017, following petitions by Punjab National Bank and other lenders over unpaid dues exceeding ₹ 47,000 crore. JSW, which offered over ₹ 19,000 crore, emerged as the successful bidder, beating out rival Tata Steel. The resolution plan was approved by the CoC in October 2018, the NCLT in 2019, and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in 2020. However, challenges were filed by dissenting creditors and former promoter Sanjay Singal, leading to the May 2, 2025 ruling, which temporarily scrapped the plan—until it was recalled by the apex court last week. BPSL was one of 12 large defaulters identified by the RBI in 2017 for resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). At that time, it owed over ₹ 47,000 crore to lenders.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
ED can't act like 'crook', must work within four corners of law: SC
New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate cannot act like a "crook" and has to confine itself within the four corners of the law, the Supreme Court on Thursday said as it flagged low conviction rates in cases investigated by the central agency. "We are also concerned for the image of the Enforcement Directorate," a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, N Kotiswar Singh said. The top court is hearing pleas seeking review of the 2022 verdict that upheld powers of arrest of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Centre and the ED, questioned the maintainability of the review petitions and attributed the low conviction rate to the delaying tactics of "influential accused". "Influential crooks have a lot of wherewithal. They employ a battery of lawyers to file applications after applications at different stages to protract the proceedings and the investigating officer of the case instead of devoting time to investigation keeps on running to court for one application or other," Raju said. Justice Bhuyan referred to one of his judgements and said of the 5,000 cases registered by the ED in past five years there were less than 10 per cent convictions and this factual statement was substantiated by the minister in Parliament. "You can't act like a crook, you have to act within the four corners of the law. I observed in one of my judgments that ED has registered around 5,000 ECIRs in the past five years but the conviction rate is less than 10 why we have been insisting that you improve your investigation as it deals with the liberty of the individual," Justice Bhuyan said. The judge continued, "We are also concerned about ED's image. At the end of 5-6 years of judicial custody, if people are acquitted, who will pay for this?" Justice Kant said the answer to all the problems was having dedicated courts akin to TADA and POTA courts and the dedicated PMLA courts could conduct day-to-day proceedings, resulting in expeditious disposal of cases. "Yes, influential accused will still file numerous applications but these accused and their lawyers will know that since it is day-to-day trial and their application will be decided the very next day. Time has come to hit them hard. We can't have sympathy for them. I know a magistrate who has to decide 49 applications in a day and pass orders for 10-20 pages in each of them. This cannot go on," he said. Raju further noted ED getting "handicapped" after "influential accused" flee to different countries like Cayman Islands aside from dealing in crypto-currencies and other sophisticated methods and impede investigation. On the point of crypto-currencies, Justice Kant said the government ought to seriously think of regulating it for people were operating different apps and crypto stock exchanges. He said top court's Justice Joymalya Bagchi recently said in a case that a day was not far when bribe takers would take bribes in crypto-currency, which will be very difficult for the investigating agencies to investigate. Raju questioned the authenticity of the review petitions, calling them "nothing but appeals" against the 2022 verdict disguised as review. "For the review, you have to make out a case for error apparent on the face of record in the 2022 verdict but they have not stated anywhere what is error apparent. If these reviews are admitted it would amount to rewriting the 2022 judgement," he said. Raju contended that the constitutional validity of the PMLA was in their favour as the Constitution bench in 2019 in the Roger Mathew case upheld the validity of the statute. "They (petitioners) took a chance and failed in that endeavour. Now they're saying, no, that was wrong and redo it. Review can't be an appeal in disguise. They must first demonstrate that there is an error apparent on the face of the record when it comes to these two issues. The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error that should be fished out. Review cannot be for asking. They have to make out an exceptionally strong case for review," Raju said. Justice Kant also enquired about the methodology adopted by ED during arrests and whether grounds of arrest and reasons for arrests were given to the accused. Raju submitted there was no obligation on the ED under the statute to supply a copy of the ECIR (equivalent to an FIR) to the accused but courts in subsequent ruling stressed on sharing grounds and reasons of arrest with accused persons. The hearing would continue next week. In July 2022, the apex court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary upheld the ED's powers to arrest, attach properties involved in money laundering and carry out search and seizure under the PMLA.
