Latest news with #M.M.Sundresh
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
SC directs Karnataka Government to release TDR certificates in favour of royal family heirs
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 22, 2025) directed the Karnataka government to release Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates of over ₹3,000 crore for 15 acres and 39 guntas of Bangalore Palace Grounds acquired for widening the Ballari and Jayamahal roads to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family. The judgment was pronounced by a Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar. The legal heirs, represented by advocate T. Harish Kumar and others, had moved the top court. In February, the court had ordered the State to deposit the TDR certificates while taking a stern view of the government's changing stands on the issue. The court had at the time referred to the State's move to promulgate the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Ordinance, 2025, giving itself the right to either acquire the property or not acquire it. The court had interpreted the promulgation of the Ordinance as a signal that the State was effectively dropping the road-widening plans rather than part with the TDR worth ₹3,000 crore. The State had promulgated the Ordinance in January 2025. Through the Ordinance it had reserved to itself the right to not acquire the land situated in the heart of Bengaluru city after the top court passed an order in December last year, directing it to issue the TDR. Earlier, the State had contended that the issuance of the TDR certificates would result in an additional 13,91,742 sq. feet of built-up area constructable in the city. This would approximately be of a notional value of ₹1,396 crores after deducting 60% of the guidance value. The Karnataka government had also filed a separate application urging the Supreme Court to take up 1997 civil appeal challenging constitutional validity of the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996.
The Hindu
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court requests panel to identify Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 14, 2025) requested a committee formed by the Madras High Court to identify Agamic temples as against non-Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu in three months. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal said once the Agamic temples are identified, status quo must prevail and no appointments of archakars (priests) must be made to them for the time being. 'Whatever the committee identifies as Agamic temples… don't touch it,' Justice Sundresh addressed senior advocate Dushyant Dave and Tamil Nadu Advocate General P.S. Raman. However, once the identification of Agamic temples are over, the State may go ahead and fill up the existing vacancies for archakars in the non-Agamic temples. The apex court said the committee headed by former Madras High Court judge Justice M. Chockalingam would conduct the identification exercise. One of its members, M.P. Sathyavel Murugan, against whom objections were raised, would not be part of the committee, the Bench recorded. The court further directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of Tamil Nadu to fill up the existing vacancies of archakars and maniyams (temple workforce) in Rameswaram Ramanathaswamy Temple. Advocate Elephant Rajendran, who represented an intervention highlighting the vacancies in the Rameswaram Temple, said the appointments must be made in accordance with the customs and traditions. The petitioner, Srirangam Koil Miras Kainkaryaparagal Matrum Athanai Sarntha Koilgalin Miraskainkaryaparargalin Nalasangam, represented by senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, said Agamic temples were very few in numbers. The petitioners were not concerned with the non-Agamic temples. Mr. Dave said Agamic temples were the most important temples. Mr. Dave and Mr. Raman argued that the petitioners have even challenged the stipend given to intern archakars. 'We [State] only want them to be trained for their religious duties,' Mr. Dave submitted. The court scheduled the next hearing in September 2025. In November 2023, the apex court had refused to vacate or modify its earlier interim order of status quo on priesthood in temples governed by age-old Agamas (post-Vedic scripture conveying ritual knowledge). The status quo order had been passed on the basis of a series of petitions alleging that the Tamil Nadu government was attempting to appoint 'non-believers' as archakars, contrary to the Agamas. The State had countered that appointments were a secular function entitled to the government. It had maintained that its intention was to have 'Hindus, irrespective of caste and creed, to be trained and qualified in order to be appointed as archakars under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department'.
Time of India
25-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
SC allows RBI to start fresh proceedings against big defaulters
The Supreme Court has overturned high court orders that had halted actions against major defaulters, allowing the RBI and banks to resume proceedings. The court clarified that quashing administrative actions doesn't prevent authorities from initiating fresh proceedings. FIRs and criminal proceedings can proceed independently, even if administrative actions are under scrutiny, as they serve distinct purposes. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Friday said the Reserve Bank of India and banks can proceed afresh against big defaulters even as it set aside orders of various high courts that quashed criminal proceeding initiated against such borrowers and also stalled actions taken by the lenders for declaring their accounts as frauds.'Setting aside of an administrative action on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice does not bar the administrative authorities from proceeding afresh,' a Bench comprising and Rajesh Bindal said that high courts across the country exceeded their jurisdiction when they quashed FIRs and the subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against borrowers whose accounts had been declared fraudulent without any challenge being made to such apex court said that an administrative action, such as by RBI and banks, and a criminal proceeding stand on different footings. A first information report, by taking cognizance of an offence, merely sets the law into motion, it said, adding this has nothing to do with a decision on the administrative side, made by a different authority.'Merely because the facts are same or similar, one cannot say that in the absence of a valid administrative action, no offence which is otherwise cognizable, can be registered,' the judgment even assuming that there is no action forthcoming on the administrative side, a FIR can be held to be maintainable, the judges said, adding that the scope and role of both the actions are totally different and distinct, more so when undertaken by different statutory or public apex court said the FIRs were "erroneously" quashed in certain cases where no opportunity of being heard was given to the Central Bureau of Investigation or where the probe agency was not even made a party to the Supreme Court had in 2023 held that a lender is bound to give an opportunity of personal hearing to a borrower before classifying its account as fraudulent as per the Master Circular of July 1, of accounts as fraud results in civil consequences for borrowers and amounts to blacklisting of borrowers, hence opportunity of hearing must be granted for the borrowers, it had said, while asking RBI and lenders to include priniciples of natural justice in circular in order to give an opportunity to the affected party/person to present their to the SC judgment, the HCs across the country had not only quashed the declaration of borrower's account as fraud, but also the FIRs and criminal proceedings filed against them.
