Relief for bike taxis, Karnataka HC extends deadline for ban
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday extended the deadline for taxi aggregators to cease all their bike taxi operations by another six weeks till June 15.
Justice B M Shyam Prasad passed the order after hearing the applications filed by the taxi aggregators seeking an extension of time.
On April 2, the high court granted six weeks to Ola, Uber and Rapido to cease all their operations as aggregators of bike taxis. After six weeks, the state government had to ensure that all bike taxi operations be stopped, the court said, noting that unless the state government notified the relevant guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the rules thereunder, the petitioners cannot operate as aggregators offering bike taxi services.
The counsel for one of the taxi aggregators submitted that after the order was passed by the court on April 2, the chief secretary convened a meeting, where details of the policy in other states were made available. There is a general expectation that the request would be considered if there could be an extension of another six weeks. Another counsel for another petitioner submitted that the court may consider that a number of persons are currently running bike taxis and they require more time to make alternative arrangements, he pleaded.
Advocate General K Shashi Kiran Shetty, however, opposed both those grounds, emphasising that a meeting may be conveyed, but the expectation of a particular decision may not be justified. After hearing this, the court extended the time, saying that there should be no precipitation and a reasonable opportunity is given to all.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump's ‘Baby Investment Accounts': What you need to know
Live Events FAQs: Trump's Savings Plan for Newborns (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel A new proposal backed by US President Donald Trump would create $1,000 investment accounts for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. Known unofficially as "Trump Accounts" or 'MAGA Accounts,' the program is part of a broader tax-cut package that recently passed the House and is now pending in the eligible newborn would receive a one-time $1,000 contribution from the federal government, invested in a stock market-linked mutual or index fund. Additional contributions of up to $5,000 annually could be made by parents, religious institutions, or private donors. Funds would become partially accessible at age 18 for education, job training, or buying a first home, with full access at age 30. Dell Technologies has already pledged to match the government's $1,000 contribution for newborns of its employees, should the proposal become law. Other business leaders — including CEOs from Uber, Goldman Sachs, and Robinhood — attended a recent 'Invest America' roundtable at the White House to discuss the the White House issued a press release claiming support from the industry leaders including Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, and Altimeter Capital CEO Brad Gerstner."Together with historic tax cuts, an increased child tax credit, higher wages, and monumental economic growth, the One Big Beautiful Bill will change the lives of middle-class families across America," the release despite high-profile support, the proposal faces opposition in the Senate, particularly from fiscal conservatives who are pushing for revisions. Critics argue the program lacks the tax advantages of existing savings options like 529 plans and may not offer the strongest long-term a proposed federal initiative that would provide every U.S.-born child between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, with a $1,000 government-funded investment account, tied to the performance of the U.S. stock accounts are part of the "Invest America" plan and have been informally referred to as 'Trump Accounts' or 'MAGA Accounts' (Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement).Each eligible newborn would receive a one-time $1,000 contribution from the U.S. government, deposited into a mutual or index Parents, religious institutions, and private organizations can contribute up to $5,000 per year into the account during the child's become partially accessible at age 18 for specific uses like education, vocational training, or a first home purchase. The full balance becomes available at age accounts are tax-deferred, meaning investments grow tax-free until withdrawal — similar to 529 college savings plans, but with a lower annual contribution child's legal guardians would manage the account until the child becomes eligible to access the While the provision passed the House as part of a broader tax package, it's still under review in the Senate and faces opposition from some fiscally conservative Technologies has pledged to match the $1,000 for newborns of its employees if the plan passes. Executives from Goldman Sachs, Uber, Robinhood, and others have shown interest by attending White House discussions.529 plans typically allow higher contributions and are geared specifically toward education. Trump accounts are broader in usage and provide an initial government-funded seed investment.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
'Trump Account' for newborns: US President reveals $1,000 investments for kids in GOP megabill
Donald Trump unveiled a federal program Monday providing $1,000 government-funded investment accounts for American babies, getting big time backing from top business leaders who plan to contribute billions more to an initiative tied to 'the big beautiful bill'. At a White House roundtable with over a dozen CEOs, including from Uber, Goldman Sachs and Dell Technologies, Trump relayed the details of 'Trump accounts' – tax-deferred investment accounts tracking stock market performance for children born between 2025 and 2029. Show more Show less
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
DDA moves HC, says Rera cannot issue it directions
New Delhi: In an unusual development, Delhi Development Authority has moved the high court against another statutory body, Rera. Questioning the real estate regulator's competence to order DDA to register the housing projects, the latter stated that it was not a real estate promoter like private builders, but an independent authority whose activities were covered under the DDA Act and related Nazul rules. Last month, a bench of Justice Sachin Dutta issued notice to Rera and the central ministry of housing and urban affairs, seeking their stand on the DDA's petition. The land owning agency, which also comes under the direct control of the Centre, challenged a provision in Rera which makes it mandatory for all developers, including govt authorities, to register their projects for sale with the respective regulators in the state. DDA termed it an "overreach of jurisdiction" and argued it had to move court "under extraordinary circumstances and for emergent reliefs in view of a palpably unconstitutional, illegal, unauthorised assumption of jurisdiction by Rera, thereby seeking to regulate the petitioner authority, when the latter is not only a creature of another statute, namely the Delhi Development Act, 1957, but also the very subject matter in respect of which the said assumption of jurisdiction has been exercised is regulated under the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968, and Nazul Rules, 1981 framed under section 56 of the DDA Act, 1957. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo " Senior advocate Ramesh Singh and DDA counsel Vrinda Kapoor Dev argued that Rera authorities failed to recognise that DDA operated under a comprehensive constitutional and parliamentary mandate and was already subject to robust govt oversight, auditing mechanisms and accountability structures. Singh and Kapoor also contended that the Delhi Development Act, 1957 mandated DDA "to promote and secure the development of Delhi according to plan," establishing it as an "instrument of state policy rather than a commercial entity. " The plea said Rera required promoter details like name, address, type, registration and photographs, but DDA was created by a law of Parliament and "has a pivotal role in Delhi's development." While registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act requires details of past projects, status, delays, pending cases, land type and payment, the civic agency doesn't need to furnish authenticated copies of approvals and commencement certificates from a competent authority, as it is itself the "competent authority" and sanctions its own layout and plans, it added. Delhi Rera has maintained that those who are in real estate development, whether it is DDA or any other such organisations, must register projects with the regulatory authority, adding that it has powers to take action against them if they fail to do so. Recently, the real estate regulator also ordered DDA to register its super luxury project at Dwarka.
