Latest news with #BelaTrivedi
Scroll.in
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Readers' comments: On Ali Khan Mahmudabad and MP minister, can't judges understand Hindi or English?
What a wonderful straight forward judge of the Supreme Court (' Why Bela Trivedi retired from Supreme Court as a deeply unpopular judge '). I respect her honesty. My salute to her. – K Shanmugam *** She might have been lenient with respect to the BJP. But if Kapil Sibal is against a judge, it speaks volumes about the honesty and integrity of that judge. The Supreme Court has been too liberal and inconsistent. It has behaved like an opposition party. – V Ravi Narayanan *** Justice Bela Trivedi was popular only with the BJP and the RSS. – Umakant Pawaskar Ali Khan Mahmudabad While listening to this discussion, I read the two posts by Professor Khan (' Video: Is Ali Khan Mahmudabad's peace appeal seditious? '). I am stunned by what Justice Surya Kant wrote in the operative part of his order: that in order to 'holistically understand the complexity of phraseology' of those two posts, he is directing the director general of police, Haryana, to constitute a Special Investigation Team. Is the English language used in those two posts beyond the comprehension of a learned judge of the Supreme Court? Will the police officers who constitute the SIT be experts in the English language? This judge, who appoints police officers to interpret the English language for him before he does justice to a 'bail application', is in line to be the next chief justice of India. Under such a judge, 'sedition', 'disrespect to women', 'danger to the sovereignty of the country', are terms that can be 'suitably moulded' as prevailing majoritarian sentiments, courtesy of the police officers. Police officers will hereafter act as experts in English language in one case. In the other case, the Hindi language speech of the BJP minister in Madhya Pradesh shall also be interpreted for the learned judge. Who are these wise men holding the constitutional posts in the Supreme Court who are capable of understanding neither English nor Hindi? God save this motherland. – Onkar Singh Ali Khan Mahmudabad can never be loyal to India. His grandfather actively participated in the movement for Pakistan. He has come to India only due to the advantage of a soft government and the generosity of Hindus, to jihad. He is at best a Pakistani agent bent upon destroying India. – GD Sharma
India Today
16-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Justice Bela Trivedi spends last day at Supreme Court. Her notable judgments
Justice Bela Trivedi spent her last working day at the Supreme Court of India on Friday, bringing an end to an illustrious tenure at the top court. Although her official retirement is scheduled for June, she wrapped up her duties ahead of Trivedi was one of the three women who took an oath as judges of the Supreme Court and was among the nine new appointees. Justice Trivedi is also the first woman judge from the Gujarat High Court to be appointed as a Supreme Court JUDGMENTS AS SUPREME COURT JUDGEIn a landmark 2024 judgment, a 6:1 majority ruled that states can create subclassifications within Scheduled Castes (SCs) to allocate reservations for more disadvantaged groups. Justice Trivedi was the sole dissenter, asserting that such subclassification by states was a judgment pronounced a day before her last working day, a Justice Trivedi-led bench flagged the inadequacy of the number of exclusive courts for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) cases. The court stated that it was therefore expected that the Union of India and the state governments would take appropriate steps to ensure POCSO courts were created and cases were decided on Trivedi was also part of the bench that upheld the constitutional validity of the "power to arrest" provisions under the Customs and GST Acts while also laying down the pre-conditions and when and how the power of arrest is to be bench led by Justice Trivedi had dismissed an appeal filed by sitting Trinamool Congress MP, Abhishek Banerjee, challenging the summonses issued to him by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), bench also dismissed appeals filed by AAP leader Satyendar Jain against denial of bail in the money laundering case and directed Jain, who was on interim bail, to surrender before the Special Court.A bench which also had Justice Trivedi on the dais heard an appeal against a high court order refusing to quash an FIR registered against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu. The bench gave a spilt verdict on the aspect of interpretation of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Trivedi was part of the 5-judge Constitution bench which upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which provides for 10 per cent reservation to economically weaker sections to posts under the state and in admissions to educational Bela Trivedi was part of the three-judge bench which denied bail to Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) leader K Kavitha in the Delhi Excise Policy scam case after she had challenged her arrest through a writ petition. The court directed Kavitha to approach the trial court Trivedi was part of the bench that set aside the Bombay High Court judgment that acquitted an accused under the POCSO act on the grounds that no direct physical contact i.e. skin-to-skin touch with sexual intent without penetration would not amount to 'sexual assault'.ROW OVER NO FAREWELLDuring the ceremonial bench, which traditionally takes place on the last working day of a judge, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai expressed displeasure with the Bar Association's decision not to offer farewell to Justice Bela Chief Justice deprecated the stand taken by the Association, adding that while there are different types of judges, that should not be a factor in denying what should have been her tenure, there have been some instances of disagreements and even heated exchanges between Justice Trivedi and ABOUT JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDIJustice Bela Trivedi was born on June 10, 1960 in Patan, North Gujarat. She practised as a lawyer in the High Court of Gujarat for about ten was appointed directly as the judge, City Civil and Sessions Court in Ahmedabad on July 10, Trivedi's father was already working as a judge in the City Civil and Sessions Court when she was appointed. The Limca Book of Indian records has recorded the entry in their 1996 edition as "Father–daughter judges in the same court".She worked in a variety of positions, such as registrar–Vigilance in the high court, Law Secretary in the Gujarat government, CBI court judge, Special Judge Trivedi was elevated as a judge of the Gujarat High Court on February 17, 2011. She was later transferred to the Rajasthan High Bela Trivedi was finally elevated as a Supreme Court judge on August 31, 2021.
India Today
09-05-2025
- India Today
Second FIR not needed, Supreme Court corrects order on Badlapur encounter
The Supreme Court on Tuesday 'corrected' its own order in the case involving police killing a suspect charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act in Badlapur, Maharashtra. 'We may clarify that registration of a second FIR is not needed. The original order be corrected accordingly,' court top court was hearing a petition by the Maharashtra government challenging a Bombay High Court directive to register a First Information Report (FIR) against five policemen involved in the alleged Monday's hearing, the Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Prasanna Varale modified the Bombay High Court's order to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by the Joint Commissioner of Mumbai Police. Instead, the Supreme Court instructed the Director General of Maharashtra Police (DGP) to constitute the SIT to investigate the alleged encounter of accused Akshay Shinde. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Maharashtra government, argued that while the state supported forming an SIT, the High Court lacked authority to appoint an investigating officer. On Tuesday, Mehta again presented the state's petition, highlighting that an FIR had already been registered and an investigation was underway, making the High Court's order for a second FIR OF THE CASEAkshay Shinde, a school sweeper in Badlapur, was accused of sexually assaulting two kindergarten girls under the POCSO Act. His arrest on August 7, 2024, triggered widespread public September 23, 2024, whilst being transferred from Taloja prison to a police station, Shinde was killed in what police described as a self-defence encounter. According to their account, Shinde became agitated during transit, snatched a pistol, and shot policeman Nilesh More in the thigh. Senior Police Inspector Sanjay Shinde allegedly responded by shooting him in the head at point-blank FIR was filed against the deceased Shinde for attempted murder of the policeman, but only an Accidental Death Report (ADR) was recorded regarding Shinde's death. The Bombay High Court criticised this approach, ruling that an ADR was insufficient in cases involving fatal injuries and that a proper FIR should have been registered to ensure an impartial Maharashtra government maintained that a second FIR was unnecessary since one already existed relating to the incident. They also noted that an internal enquiry into the encounter was in progress, and a new FIR against the policemen would only be filed if sufficient grounds were found.A separate magisterial enquiry had already concluded that police used excessive force and rejected the self-defence claim. Despite this, the state argued that the magisterial report was merely advisory and not binding, preferring to await its own investigation's conclusion before taking further its ruling, the High Court noted what it perceived as clear reluctance by the state to properly investigate the role of the policemen involved in the encounter.
Mint
07-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Can JSW ruling upset insolvency regime's balance?
The Supreme Court ruling quashing Bhushan Power & Steel's (BPSL) resolution plan has upended JSW Steel 's ₹ 19,000 crore acquisition. Mint explains the recovery options—from a Supreme Court review to potential government intervention. The Supreme Court ruling invalidating JSW Steel's ₹ 19,700 crore acquisition of BPSL is a major blow to its growth ambitions, especially its 2030 target of achieving 50 million tonnes (mt) of steel capacity. JSW paid ₹ 19,350 crore to settle BPSL's creditors. BPSL's Odisha Jharsuguda plant contributed 13% to JSW's total production and around 10-11% of Ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). Analysts say losing the asset could slash JSW's FY26 Ebitda by ₹ 4,000–4,500 crore. The ruling affects 2.5mt of flat products, disrupting downstream sectors. With the SC annulling JSW Steel's acquisition, banks must return ₹ 19,350 crore under the March 2020 CoC undertaking. JSW had paid this to settle ₹ 47,204.51 crore owed to BPSL's financial creditors. Major public lenders like State Bank of India , Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank , along with private lenders like Axis Bank and Karur Vysya Bank , are affected. With BPSL now heading for liquidation, lenders are likely to recover far less than under the resolution plan. This affects earnings, especially amid pressure on PSU banks' margins and could worsen with Reserve Bank of India's expected rate cuts in FY26. Also Read | Mint Primer | India's economy looks strong. What could go wrong? JSW Steel and the lenders can file a review petition before the Supreme Court within 30 days under Article 137 of the Constitution. A full reversal is unlikely, say analysts, but partial relief—such as clarity on JSW's paid funds—is possible. A new bench may hear the petition, as Justice Bela Trivedi, who was part of the ruling bench, is set to retire in the first week of June. The government is reviewing the ruling decision. Department of Financial Services secretary M. Nagaraju said the matter could soon be placed before the government for legal or policy action. Experts suggest the Centre may issue an ordinance to uphold the finality of resolution plans and curb post-resolution litigation. Drawing from Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code amendments, the Centre may consider statutory protection for resolution applicants like JSW to avoid uncertainty in future insolvencies. Experts warn that the judgment could weaken the IBC by eroding the finality of resolution plans. Reopening settled cases over procedural lapses may deter bold decisions by lenders and the CoC. Resolution professionals might become too cautious, slowing things to avoid risk. Using Article 142 to reverse an implemented resolution plan and order liquidation is unprecedented and raises concerns of judicial overreach, potentially disrupting the balance in India's insolvency regime.
Indian Express
05-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Bhushan Power saga: Why did Supreme Court reject JSW Steel takeover bid and order liquidation?
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected steel major JSW Steel Ltd's Rs 19,350 crore bid to acquire Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) through the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) route, and ordered the liquidation of the company. While ordering the liquidation, the biggest in the corporate history, a bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma lambasted the delay on the part of JSW Steel to implement the resolution plan and said the Committee of Creditors (CoC) failed to exercise its commercial wisdom while approving the Resolution Plan. JSW Steel, controlled by Sajjan Jindal, and lenders are likely to go for appeal against the SC order as both the parties will suffer a setback if liquidation of BPSL is implemented. First big deal to face liquidation The liquidation of BPSL is set to be the biggest in the history of the corporate sector in terms of the size of the debt. Supreme Court of India earlier ordered the liquidation of Jet Airways, a once prominent Indian airline, due to the failure of a resolution plan and the inability of the Jalan-Kalrock Consortium (JKC) to fulfil its financial obligations. While Jet Airways was estimated to have owed its financial creditor around Rs 7,800 crore, a total of around Rs 15,723 crore was admitted as claims by the National Company Law Tribunal when the airline was first grounded in 2019. The number of cases ending in liquidation in FY24 was 2,476 involving total claims of Rs 11 lakh crore, according to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). However, the liquidation value is just Rs 69,634 crore, just 6.33 per cent of admitted claims. SC censures delay by JSW SC said JSW even after the approval of its plan by the NCLAT, wilfully contravened and not complied with the terms of the said approved Resolution Plan for a period of about two years, which had frustrated the very object and purpose of the IBC, and consequently had vitiated the CIR proceedings of the corporate debtor-BPSL. 'In the instant case, JSW did not implement the Resolution Plan for about two years since its approval by the NCLAT, though there was no legal impediment in implementing the same. Such flagrant violation of the terms of the Resolution Plan, has frustrated the very object and purpose of the Code,' the Supreme Court said. After obtaining the approval of its Resolution Plan from CoC by presenting a rosy picture, misguiding the CoC, and defeating the rights of other resolution applicants, JSW did not respect and honour the said commitments, the SC said. On the contrary, it tried its level best to delay the implementation of the Resolution Plan without any cogent reason or justification, the order said. Though the said plan was got approved from the NCLT by the Resolution Professional (who was overseeing the resolution process) without confirming the compliance of Section 30(2) and the Regulations 38 and 39, JSW instead of complying with the terms and clauses of the approved Resolution Plan filed the company appeal before the NCLAT, just to delay the implementation of the Plan, the order said. 'This is nothing but a misuse of process of law and a fraud committed by JSW with the CoC and other stakeholders,' the order said. JSW played smart, SC says According to SC, it is pertinent to note that though all throughout from the date of order passed by the NCLT till March, 2021, the stand of the JSW evidenced through an affidavit was that it was not obliged to implement the plan because of the pendency of these appeals. However, JSW played smart by making part payment to the financial creditors in March, 2021, realising the beneficial market trend of the steel, it said. It also surreptitiously got the effective date extended to March 31, 2021 from the so-called core group of CoC, which had already become functus officio and which had no authority to extend the said effective date, the court said. The net result is that the upfront payments as agreed to be made in the Resolution Plan within 30 days of the approval of the plan by NCLT was delayed by 540 days in respect of payment to the financial creditors and by 900 days in respect of payment to the Operational Creditors. 'The equity commitment as per clause 2.3 of the Resolution Plan with regard to the infusion of equity into the company for an amount aggregating Rs 8,550 crore, to be infused upfront on the effective date, was also not complied with by JSW,' the order said. SC criticises lenders committee, RP The Supreme Court said the Committee of Lenders (CoC) had failed to exercise its commercial wisdom while approving the Resolution Plan of the JSW, which was in absolute contravention of the mandatory provisions of IBC and CIRP Regulations. The CoC also had failed to protect the interest of the creditors by taking contradictory stands before the court, and accepting the payments from JSW without any demurer, and supporting JSW to implement its ill-motivated plan against the interest of the creditors, SC said. The Resolution Professional (RP) had utterly failed to discharge his statutory duties contemplated under the IBC and the CIRP Regulations during the course of entire CIR proceedings of the corporate debtor (BPSL), SC said. 'Just as the Resolution Professional had failed to examine and confirm the compliance of mandatory provisions of the Code, to secure the interests of all the stakeholders involved in the process, the CoC also did not discharge its duty to carefully examine the feasibility and viability of the plan, and the capacity and resources of the Resolution Applicant-JSW for the implementation of the plan proposed by it,' SC said. There was a dishonest and fraudulent attempt made by JSW, misusing the process of the court by not making the upfront payments as committed by it for about two and a half years and thereby enriching itself unjustly, and thereafter considering the rising prices of steel in the market, JSW sought to comply with the terms of Resolution Plan at a very belated stage, in collusion with the CoC and the Resolution Professional, SC said. What it means for JSW BPSL which came under the JSW fold in 2021 has been contributing to JSW's revenue and profit. The BPSL plant made a profit of Rs 11 crore in third quarter of FY25, loss of Rs 93 crore in Q2 of FY25 and a profit of Rs 300 crore in Q1. JSW is likely to face a decline of around 8-10 per cent in EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) and revenue for FY26 if BPSL is liquidated, said an analyst. Further, JSW will have to recover Rs 19,300 crore given to the lenders if the liquidation is implemented. BPSL had expanded (Phase-II) of its plant from 3.5 MTPA to 5 MTPA. BPSL is a leading manufacturer of flat and long products and has state-of-the-art plants at Chandigarh, Derabassi, Kolkata and Odisha in India. Options before JSW, BPSL Liquidation means end of the road for BPSL. When BPSL is liquidated, its assets are sold to settle debts, often at distressed prices, leaving less money for banks. This could result in significant losses for lenders, who have already taken a huge haircut. The unwinding of this transaction is expected to have far-reaching consequences for the banking sector and IBC cases. However, JSW Steel and lenders are likely to go for an appeal against the SC order on liquidation, banking sources said. The court battle is expected to continue as JSW and lenders have odds stacked against them. 'We are yet to receive the formal copy of the order to understand the grounds for rejection in detail and its implications. Once we receive the order and are able to review the same along with our legal advisors, we will decide on our further course of action,' JSW Steel said in a stock exchange filing on Friday. A senior bank official with a nationalised bank said banks are studying the SC order. 'There could be some appeals against the SC verdict. There's a possibility that JSW might also appeal against the order,' he said. With the company going into liquidation, banks are unlikely to recover much, potentially leading to further losses. Four-year process Bhushan Power, which was the top bank defaulter listed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which went through the insolvency process under IBC, was acquired by JSW Steel after a four-year long process. The petition filed by the Punjab National Bank (PNB) against the company was admitted on July 26, 2017 and CIRP was initiated. It took 771 days to complete the resolution process, with JSW steel Limited becoming the successful resolution applicant, as National company law tribunal (NCLT) approved the resolution plan on September 5, 2019 and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld JSW's resolution plan. After a two-year delay, JSW finally acquired BPSL in March 2021 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code. Original resolution plan According to the resolution plan, the financial creditors were to be paid upfront a sum of Rs 19,350 crore on pro-rata basis against the admitted claims of Rs 47,157.99 crore. Accordingly, the resolution plan provided for a recovery of Rs 41.03 per cent to the financial creditors. As far as operational creditors are concerned, the resolution plan provided for the payment of 47.69 per cent of their admitted claims of Rs 621 crore. No claims were received from workmen/employees and other creditors. Apart from JSW Steel, Tata Steel limited (TSL) and Liberty House group had also submitted the resolution plan.
