Latest news with #AbhishekSinghvi
Time of India
07-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
DMRC-DAMEPL dispute: Will wait for a week after which law will take its course, says SC
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will wait for a week for the settlement of the dispute over refund of nearly Rs 2,500 crore by Reliance Infrastructure subsidiary Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited ( DAMEPL ) and Axis Bank to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation ( DMRC ), failing which the law will take its own course. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Axis bank , told a bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh that meetings are going on between both the parties for settling the said if Attorney General R Venkataramani can act as a mediator, though not in his official capacity, it will help resolve the dispute much bench told Venkataramani to keep the details of managing directors of the private firm and the banks and other senior officials ready."We will wait for one week. If they settle the dispute, its fine otherwise the law will take its own course," the bench said as it posted the matter for next hearing on May March 3, the top court said its verdict on the DMRC-DAMEPL dispute of last year needed to be followed in letter and spirit, or it will be bound to take coercive measures against the concerned officials of the private firm and Axis told DAMEPL and Axis Bank counsels, "What is the need to play hide and seek? When there is judgement, you need to comply with it in letter and spirit."The Axis Bank has submitted that it was not party to the dispute for six years and now suddenly it was receiving a contempt notice for said the bank was only operating the escrow account in the bench also said that it was not concerned with the claims and counterclaims of the appearing for the DMRC, said that all the earlier orders were passed against Axis Bank and it cannot be said that they were not aware of the top court had asked Venkataramani to collate the names of the persons and their positions, saying the court will take coercive action, if the need December last year, the top court issued contempt notices to the directors of Reliance Infrastructure subsidiary DAMEPL and Axis Bank for failing to refund nearly Rs 2,500 crore to the DMRC as per the apex court 's verdict dated April last arbitral ruling of 2017 had saddled the DMRC with the liability of paying nearly Rs 8,000 crore to two successive challenges to the award were dismissed by the top court, in September 2021 and November the two verdicts were overturned by the top court on April 10, 2024, on a curative petition filed by the order required DAMEPL to refund DMRC's deposit from an escrow account maintained by Axis dispute pertains to the operation of the Airport Express Metro line in Delhi that was done by DAMEPL, which cancelled the contract in 2012 citing structural defects, and invoked an arbitration clause to seek a termination fee and associated costs, amounting to Rs 8,000 April 10 last year, the top court set aside its own three-year-old judgment that awarded an Anil Ambani group firm Rs 8,000 crore in a dispute with Delhi Metro, and asked the company to return about Rs 2,500 crore it had already received, holding that the previous verdict caused "grave miscarriage of injustice" to a public utility saddled with an exorbitant the curative plea of the DMRC against the 2021 judgement, the top court said the order of the Delhi High Court 's division bench was a "well-considered decision" and "there was no valid basis" for the Supreme Court to interfere with interference by the apex court, in its earlier decisions, resulted in restoring a patently illegal award, it per the arbitral award, DAMEPL was entitled to Rs 2,782.33 crore plus interest in terms of the concession agreement. This amount swelled to Rs 8,009.38 crore by February 14, apex court on September 9, 2021, upheld the 2017 arbitration award enforceable against DMRC, and said there was a disturbing tendency of courts setting aside such quashed the Delhi High Court order that set aside the arbitration award in favour of DAMEPL, which pulled out of an agreement to run the Airport Express Metro line over safety on November 23, 2021, the top court dismissed DMRC's plea seeking a review of its September 9, 2021, judgement, saying no case for review was made by this order, DMRC filed a curative plea, the last legal recourse in the Supreme Court, in 2022 against the dismissal of the review is quite rare, especially in commercial matters, for the top court to reverse its two decisions rendered in an appeal and then in review while entertaining a curative plea.
Time of India
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
CM lauds SC lawyers for ruling on Guv roles
Chennai: Declaring that the Supreme Court's landmark judgement defining the state governor's role is "not just another ruling but political freedom," chief minister M K Stalin said the victory belongs to all states striving to uphold democracy. "This is not merely a felicitation ceremony but a celebration of democratic victory ," Stalin said, speaking at an event to honour the senior advocates who led the successful legal battle. "Supreme Court judges, the advocates who argued this case, and the state will forever be remembered. This judgement reaffirmed the core principles of federalism and ensures that the rights of the states are protected in the true spirit of the Constitution," the chief minister said to a hall full of ministers, MLAs, govt officials, judges, and other legal luminaries. Senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi, MP, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P Wilson, MP, were felicitated for their pivotal roles in securing the judgement. Though senior advocate and former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi could not attend due to personal reasons, he conveyed his appreciation through a letter to the chief minister. Senior advocate and MP Wilson praised the CM's decision in 2023 to challenge the misuse of gubernatorial powers despite contrary advice. "In 2018, when the then state govt denied space for the burial of our beloved leader Kalaignar M Karunanidhi, Stalin approached the court and emerged victorious. Continuing in that spirit, he chose to stand firmly on the side of constitutional principles again," Wilson said. He added that what Karunanidhi envisioned decades ago by establishing the Rajamannar Commission to define the powers of a governor has now found its culmination under Stalin's leadership. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Co-Founder of Google Brain, Andrew Ng, Is Reported To Have Read Every... Blinkist: Andrew Ng's Reading List Undo Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi underlined the critical message of the judgement, stating that governors must work within constitutional limits. Even as the advocates were presented with a Sengol at the event, Abhishek Singhvi remarked that Stalin's commitment to upholding constitutional morality deserves a Sengol a symbol of righteousness in itself.
Hindustan Times
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
No jurisdiction of CBI to probe once consent withdrawn: West Bengal to SC
New Delhi, The West Bengal government on Wednesday called the CBI an "unwanted guest" not having jurisdiction to probe cases inside the state once the general consent to investigate was withdrawn by it. Senior lawyer Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the TMC government, made the submission before a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. The top court was hearing about nine pleas of accused persons, including Anup Majee, the director of the company engaged in purchase and sale of dry fuel, relating to the CBI probe into alleged illegal coal trading in the Asansol-Raniganj belt of West Bengal. 'Once the state took back the consent , there is cessation of jurisdiction of is entering like an unwanted guest,' Singhvi said, "though, the state government has nothing to do with the instant criminal case against private individual". He added, "I am concerned about the unwanted guest and I am not concerned about the present dispute." The bench deferred the hearing on the pleas of the accused to May 7 after a lawyer on behalf of the CBI said solicitor general Tushar Mehta will argue the case, but he was unavailable. The CBI has insisted that the crime pertained to the Railways, and it, therefore, has the jurisdiction. The bench previously protected Majee from arrest in the case. The bench also inquired about a separate lawsuit filed by the state government contesting the CBI's action of pressing ahead with probe of cases in the state despite withdrawal of general consent. West Bengal withdrew the general consent allowing the CBI to probe cases or conduct raids in the state on November 16, 2018. The bench was informed that on July 10, last year, another bench headed by Justice B R Gavai rejected the Centre's objection to the maintainability of a lawsuit by West Bengal and said the CBI operated under the control of the union government. The top court said a provision of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, said the Central Vigilance Commission had control over cases for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The apex court agreed to hear the plea challenging the Calcutta High Court order which allowed the CBI to investigate the case of alleged illegal mining and transportation of coal in West Bengal without the state's consent. The plea claimed the CBI lacked jurisdiction to lodge an FIR in the case after the withdrawal of general consent by the state government in 2018. The CBI filed a counter and said it did not require prior consent from the West Bengal government to conduct a probe in the case, as the purported offence had taken place within the "railway areas". West Bengal government contended that since consent to the CBI to carry out any probe in the state was withdrawn on November 16, 2018, no investigation for offences committed within its territorial jurisdiction can be conducted by the central agency. On February 12, 2021, a division bench of the high court stayed a single bench order restricting a CBI investigation into alleged illegal mining and transportation of coal to just 'railway areas' of the state and rejected the plea of Majee for grant of protection from any coercive action against him. On February 3, 2021, the single judge bench of the high court had said that CBI is not authorised to conduct physical raids or active investigation into areas of West Bengal other than the railway areas as defined under the Railways Act. The CBI on November 28, 2020 carried out a massive search operation in a number of locations in four states West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh after registering a case.
