Latest news with #J.B.Pardiwala
India Gazette
4 days ago
- Business
- India Gazette
Vodafone Idea CEO's AGR remarks triggers debate on Supreme Court's final ruling
New Delhi [India], June 5 (ANI): On May 19, 2025, a two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed petitions filed by Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel, and the Tata Group under Article 32, which sought waivers on AGR interest and penalties. The court reaffirmed that the matter had been conclusively settled through its 2019 ruling and subsequent review petitions, stating, 'It will be a very sad day if the highest Court of this Country starts entertaining Article 32 writ petitions on the same subject matter after the curative petitions are dismissed.' Despite this, during a June 2 earnings call, Vodafone Idea CEO Akshaya Moondra stated that the company remains engaged with the Union government to seek a resolution. 'As far as the government relief is concerned, I think we are engaged with the government... What the government will do, I cannot comment on their behalf. But definitely post the judgment, we continue with our engagement with the government to find a solution to the AGR matter,' he said. Legal experts swiftly denounced the statement, arguing that it misrepresented the court's position. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai recently cautioned against the distortion of judicial remarks, emphasizing that such misinterpretations could negatively influence public perception. Advocate Gaurav Gupta, who has appeared in multiple civil cases, stated that the Supreme Court's May 19 order reaffirmed the finality of AGR dues. He stressed that any future government intervention or executive relief altering the quantum or finality of AGR dues was now precluded by the court's decision. Notably, the court labeled Vodafone Idea's writ petition as 'misconceived,' making the CEO's remarks about government involvement legally unfounded. Advocate Ashish Dixit emphasized that the petition under Article 32 was 'misconceived,' questioning the rationale behind filing it despite the Supreme Court having already adjudicated the issue up to the curative stage. 'Once an issue is decided by the highest court, the options for both the company and government are limited, as the executive cannot override the law established by the Supreme Court,' he said. Advocate Mohit Paul, an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court, highlighted the ongoing dispute surrounding AGR--the yardstick for license fees and spectrum-usage charges. The matter was definitively settled by the Supreme Court in October 2019, ruling that AGR includes all forms of income--telecom or otherwise--and that operators are required to pay approximately Rs1.56 trillion, including interest and penalties. Following years of legal battles--including failed review petitions in 2020 and curative petitions dismissed in September 2024--the telcos made yet another attempt by filing Article 32 writs in May 2025, seeking a waiver worth roughly Rs80,000 crore. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected these petitions, remarking that reopening the issue would be 'a very sad day,' reiterating its belief that the writ petitions were 'misconceived.' During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Vodafone Idea, conceded that all legal avenues--including review and curative petitions--had been exhausted. He urged the court to allow the government to assess the company's representation. The bench responded: 'If the government wants to help you, we are not coming in the way; who is stopping them from having a look at the representation?' However, Rohatgi informed the court that the government had declined to consider the request, citing the binding nature of the AGR ruling. The Solicitor General confirmed that the executive was restricted from intervening due to prior Supreme Court decisions. The bench concluded: 'If you cannot examine it, we also cannot examine it now.' Rohatgi's subsequent plea to withdraw the petition was denied, along with his request to insert a statement allowing petitioners to approach the government. The court remarked, 'Everything has its own limits.' (ANI)
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
NEET-PG: Supreme Court mandates pre-counselling fee disclosure by universities
Expressing concern over widespread seat blocking in postgraduate medical admissions, the Supreme Court has mandated pre-counselling fee disclosure by all private and deemed universities for NEET-PG. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said the malpractice of seat blocking distorted the actual availability of seats, fostered inequity among aspirants, and often reduced the process to one governed more by chance than merit. "Seat blocking is not merely an isolated wrongdoing – it reflects deeper systemic flaws rooted in fragmented governance, lack of transparency, and weak policy enforcement. Although regulatory bodies have introduced disincentives and technical controls, the core challenges of synchronisation, real-time visibility, and uniform enforcement remain largely unaddressed," the Bench's April 29 order said. The verdict added, "Achieving a truly fair and efficient system will require more than policy tweaks; it demands structural coordination, technological modernisation, and robust regulatory accountability at both state and Central levels." The top court, as a result, directed implementation of a nationally synchronised counselling calendar to align All India Quota and state rounds and prevent seat blocking across systems. "Mandate pre-counselling fee disclosure by all private/deemed universities, detailing tuition, hostel, caution deposit, and miscellaneous charges. Establish a centralised fee regulation framework under the National Medical Commission," it said. The Bench further ordered authorities to enforce strict penalties for seat blocking including forfeiture of security deposit, disqualification from future NEET-PG exams and blacklisting complicit colleges. "Permit upgrade windows post-round two for admitted candidates to shift to better seats without reopening counselling to new entrants. Publish raw scores, answer keys and normalisation formulae for transparency in multi-shift NEET-PG exams," the order said. The top court's judgement came on a plea filed by UP government and the director general of Medical Education & Training, Lucknow, challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in 2018. The High Court had directed the director general to give compensation to two aggrieved students who had appeared in the NEET PG exams and take action against blocking of seats.
The Hindu
19-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
SC refuses to entertain Vodafone, Airtel pleas for AGR relief
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected pleas by telecom majors Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea and Tata Teleservices for relief in the payments of their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) liabilities. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan termed the petitions 'misconceived.' The telcos had wanted relief in the payment of their interest on the dues, penalty and interest on the penalty. They appealed to the Supreme Court's sense of equity, saying they were under severe financial strain owing to a series of court rulings on AGR over the years. The companies sought a waiver of more than ₹40,000 crore in liabilities related to the AGR, invoking the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution to afford all players an equal opportunity and level field. The companies had argued that a waiver was the need of the hour to ensure the stability of the sector. In September last year, the apex court had dismissed curative petitions filed by the telecom service providers against an October 2019 judgment upholding the Department of Telecom's (DoT) move to recover AGR dues to the tune of about ₹92,000 crore from them. The October 2019 verdict had said the telecom sector had long reaped the fruits of the Centre's liberalised mode of payment by revenue sharing regime with the government. Under this mechanism, the operators had to pay a certain licensing fee and spectrum usage fee to the DoT. The Department calculated the fee as a percentage of the AGR. The dispute between the private telecom sector and the government over the calculation of the AGR has spanned over two decades. 'The sector has benefited immensely under the scheme as apparent from the gross revenue trend from 2004 to 2015… The telecom service providers in spite of the financial benefits of the package started to ensure that they do not pay the licence fee to the public exchequer based on an agreed AGR,' the Supreme Court had observed in its 153-page judgment in 2019. The court had dismissed the telecom service providers' (TSP) objection to the government's formulation of AGR. The judgment had said the gross revenue would be inclusive of installation charges, late fees, sale proceeds of handsets (or any other terminal equipment etc.), revenue on account of interest, dividend, value-added services, supplementary services, access or interconnection charges, roaming charges, revenue from permissible sharing of infrastructure and any other miscellaneous revenue, without any set-off for related item of expense, etc. Following the dismissal of a review plea, the TSPs had moved a curative petition alleging errors in the computation of the AGR dues. This was despite a July 2020 order, which had said that applications filed by the telecom majors to 'correct' Math mistakes, which at 'first blush' look 'innocuous', was a roundabout way to recompute their AGR debts –a path expressly forbidden by the Supreme Court in an earlier order. The July 2020 order had made it clear that 'no dispute could be raised in respect of AGR dues that had been arrived at, on the basis of calculations made by the Union of India'. 'No telecom operator shall raise any dispute in respect of the demand raised by the Department of Telecommunications pertaining to AGR dues, based on the judgment of this court of October 24, 2019. It was also held that there cannot be any reassessment,' the Supreme Court had reiterated. In September 2020, the apex court had ordered that the annual 10% instalments of the TSPs towards their AGR dues would commence from April 1, 2021 up to March 31, 2031.
India.com
19-05-2025
- Business
- India.com
Bad news for Ratan Tata, Sunil Mittal's companies, SC dismisses Airtel, Vodafone, Tata Teleservices pleas, says ‘we are really shocked…'
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the petitions filed by telecom giants Vodafone, Airtel, and Tata Teleservices, which sought a waiver of their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) dues. A bench led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed the pleas, calling them as 'misconceived.' 'We are really shocked by these petitions which have come before us. It is not expected of a multinational company. We will dismiss it,' the bench told senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Vodafone. The top court refused to come in the way of the government wanting to help the telecom companies. Vodafone has sought a waiver of around Rs 30,000 crore towards interest, penalty, and interest on penalty components of its AGR dues. Rohatgi previously said the survival of the petitioner firm was crucial for maintaining competition in the telecom sector. Now the Centre holds a 49 per cent stake in the company following a recent equity conversion of interest dues, he had added. 'The present writ petition does not seek review of the judgment but only seeks waiver of rigors of payment of interest, penalty and interest of penalty under the Judgment,' the company's plea said. The petitioner, therefore, sought appropriate directions to the Centre to 'act fairly and in public interest' and not insist on the 'payment of interest, penalty and interest on penalty on AGR dues'. (With Inputs From PTI)
The Hindu
19-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Supreme Court refuses to entertain pleas by Vodafone, Airtel for AGR relief
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19, 2025) rejected pleas by telecom majors Bharti Airtel, Vodafone Idea and Tata Teleservices for relief in the payments of their adjusted gross revenue (AGR) liabilities. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan termed the petitions 'misconceived'. Also Read | Telecom AGR dues: Supreme Court dismisses curative pleas on computation 'errors' The telcos had wanted relief in the payment of their interest on the dues, penalty and interest on the penalty. They appealed to the Supreme Court's sense of equity, saying they were under severe financial strain owing to a series of court rulings on AGR over the years. The companies sought a waiver of over ₹40,000 crore in liabilities related to the AGR, invoking the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution to afford all players an equal opportunity and level field. The companies had argued that a waiver was the need of the hour to ensure the stability of the sector. In September last year, the apex court had dismissed curative petitions filed by the telecom service providers against an October 2019 judgment upholding the Department of Telecom's (DoT) move to recover AGR dues to the tune of about ₹92000 crore from them. The October 2019 verdict had said the telecom sector had long reaped the fruits of the Centre's liberalised mode of payment by revenue sharing regime with the government. Under this mechanism, the operators had to pay a certain licensing fee and spectrum usage fee to the DoT. The Department calculated the fee as a percentage of the AGR. The dispute between the private telecom sector and the government over the calculation of the AGR has spanned over two decades. 'The sector has benefited immensely under the scheme as apparent from the gross revenue trend from 2004 to 2015… The telecom service providers in spite of the financial benefits of the package started to ensure that they do not pay the licence fee to the public exchequer based on an agreed AGR,' the Supreme Court had observed in its 153-page judgment in 2019. The court had dismissed the telecom service providers' (TSP) objection to the government's formulation of AGR. The judgment had said the gross revenue would be inclusive of installation charges, late fees, sale proceeds of handsets (or any other terminal equipment etc.), revenue on account of interest, dividend, value-added services, supplementary services, access or interconnection charges, roaming charges, revenue from permissible sharing of infrastructure and any other miscellaneous revenue, without any set-off for related item of expense, etc. Following the dismissal of a review plea, the TSPs had moved a curative petition alleging errors in the computation of the AGR dues. This was despite a July 2020 order which had said that applications filed by the telecom majors to 'correct' Math mistakes, which at 'first blush' look 'innocuous', was a roundabout way to recompute their AGR debts - a path expressly forbidden by the Supreme Court in an earlier order The July 2020 order had made it clear that 'no dispute could be raised in respect of AGR dues that had been arrived at, on the basis of calculations made by the Union of India'. 'No telecom operator shall raise any dispute in respect2 of the demand raised by the Department of Telecommunications pertaining to AGR dues, based on the judgment of this court of October 24, 2019. It was also held that there cannot be any reassessment,' the Supreme Court had reiterated. In September 2020, the apex court had ordered that the annual 10% instalments of the TSPs towards their AGR dues would commence from April 1, 2021 up to March 31, 2031.
