Latest news with #Article22
The Hindu
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court upholds arrest of main accused in A.P. liquor scam case
The Supreme Court on Friday (May 23, 2025) upheld the arrest of a prime accused in the ₹3,200-crore Andhra Pradesh liquor scam case. A Bench headed by Justice A.S. Oka, who was on his last working day, dismissed the argument raised by the family of K. Rajasekhar Reddy, an IT adviser to former Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, that his arrest on April 21 was illegal. Also read: SIT probe into liquor scam | Kasireddy Rajashekar Reddy alone can spill the beans, says Vijaya Sai Reddy Mr. Rajasekhar's father had appealed to the Supreme Court after the State High Court rejected his habeas corpus petition. The appeal said the grounds of arrest communicated to Mr. Rajasekhar by the State's Criminal Investigation Department were 'not meaningful and just an eyewash'. 'The entire case revolves around the question whether the arrest of the appellant's son could be said to be per se illegal for want of supply of appropriate and meaningful grounds of arrest… Having looked into the grounds of arrest that were supplied to the son of the appellant at the time of his arrest, it is difficult for us to take the view that the grounds do not make any sense or are not meaningful or are just an eyewash,' Justice Oka concluded. The judgment narrated the prosecution version that Mr. Rajasekhar was arrested at the Hyderabad airport. He was arraigned as accused number one in the case diary maintained by the police. At the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest were supplied to him and later were also served on his father. Within 24 hours of the arrest, he was brought to Vijayawada and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Mandatory condition The Supreme Court reiterated in its judgment that 'the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional condition'. Opinion: Arrest, agencies, and criminal courts 'Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested. The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the true object underlying Article 22 (right to protection against arbitrary arrest and detention),' the court quoted from its earlier judgments. The court said a detaining authority could only claim public interest against disclosure of grounds of arrest. The Bench said it would be open to Mr. Rajasekhar, who is currently in judicial custody, to apply for regular bail before the competent court. 'If any regular bail application is pending as on date, the same shall be taken up for hearing at the earliest and be decided in accordance with law,' Justice Oka directed.
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Nvidia takes EU antitrust regulators to court for probing AI startup Run:ai bid
By Foo Yun Chee BRUSSELS (Reuters) - U.S. chipmaker Nvidia has sued EU antitrust regulators for accepting an Italian request last year to scrutinise its acquisition of AI startup Run:ai, saying they had flouted an earlier court ruling restricting their merger powers on minor deals. While the case does not have any impact on the Run:ai deal which was eventually approved by the EU competition watchdog in December last year, a ruling favouring Nvidia may further curb the regulator's merger power. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. Businesses have been concerned in recent years with the European Commission flexing a rarely-used power called Article 22 to assess small deals even though these are below the EU's merger revenue threshold. The EU executive says it is concerned about killer acquisitions in which big companies buy startups to shut them down, but companies criticise such moves as regulatory over-reach. Europe's highest court, however, in a landmark ruling in September last year said the Commission cannot encourage or accept referrals of deals without a European dimension from national enforcers when the latter do not have the powers to examine such deals under their own national laws. Nvidia cited the ruling in its lawsuit filed with the Luxembourg-based General Court, Europe's second-highest, according to a filing on the court website. "The decision unlawfully accepted a referral request from the Italian Autorità Garante della Concorrenza (AGCM), regarding a transaction that fell below the EU Merger Regulation and member state merger control thresholds, based on the AGCM's exercise of loosely defined, ex post, discretionary call-in powers," Nvidia said. It said regulators' decision to take up the Italian request breaches principles of institutional balance, legal certainty, proportionality and equal treatment. The case is T-15/25 Nvidia v Commission.
Reuters
24-02-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Nvidia takes EU antitrust regulators to court for probing AI startup Run:ai bid
BRUSSELS, Feb 24 (Reuters) - U.S. chipmaker Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab has sued EU antitrust regulators for accepting an Italian request last year to scrutinise its acquisition of AI startup Run:ai, saying they had flouted an earlier court ruling restricting their merger powers on minor deals. While the case does not have any impact on the Run:ai deal which was eventually approved by the EU competition watchdog in December last year, a ruling favouring Nvidia may further curb the regulator's merger power. Businesses have been concerned in recent years with the European Commission flexing a rarely-used power called Article 22 to assess small deals even though these are below the EU's merger revenue threshold. The EU executive says it is concerned about killer acquisitions in which big companies buy startups to shut them down, but companies criticise such moves as regulatory over-reach. Europe's highest court, however, in a landmark ruling in September last year said the Commission cannot encourage or accept referrals of deals without a European dimension from national enforcers when the latter do not have the powers to examine such deals under their own national laws. Nvidia cited the ruling in its lawsuit filed with the Luxembourg-based General Court, Europe's second-highest, according to a filing on the court website. "The decision unlawfully accepted a referral request from the Italian Autorità Garante della Concorrenza (AGCM), regarding a transaction that fell below the EU Merger Regulation and member state merger control thresholds, based on the AGCM's exercise of loosely defined, ex post, discretionary call-in powers," Nvidia said. It said regulators' decision to take up the Italian request breaches principles of institutional balance, legal certainty, proportionality and equal treatment. The case is T-15/25 Nvidia v Commission. Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
