Latest news with #RajeshBindal
United News of India
3 days ago
- Business
- United News of India
SC upholds Tribunal order validating 1967 Gift Deed, rejects benami allegation based on retrospective law
New Delhi, May 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court has upheld an order of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal that set aside the declaration of a 1967 gift deed as a benami transaction, ruling that the genuineness of a registered gift cannot be questioned due to a retrospective amendment in law made decades later. A bench, comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, dismissed an appeal challenging the Tribunal's order, which had been overturned by the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's decision, holding that the High Court erred in treating the gift deed as questionable based on an amendment introduced in 1989 to the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, with retrospective effect. 'The genuineness of the registered gift deed executed on December seven, 1967 could not be put in doubt merely because of a legislative amendment introduced over two decades later,' the Court observed. The bench added, 'If that argument were accepted, the entire holding could have been distributed to evade land ceiling provisions. However, the fact remains that even after the 1967 gift to his children, 8.806 acres of land remained with Iswar Chandra Pal and was rightfully declared surplus and vested in the State.' Notably, in 1967, Iswar Chandra Pal executed a registered gift deed transferring 20.88½ acres of land to his sons and daughters. This transfer was reflected in the revenue records by 1969. After Pal's death in 1975, the State declared 8.80 acres of his remaining land as surplus and took possession of it. Following the 1989 amendment to the Land Reforms Act, proceedings were initiated to re-examine land holdings under Sections 14T(3), 14M, and 14S of the Act. In 1997, a Revenue officer held that the 1967 gift deed was a 'benami' transaction and declared 17.9 acres of land as surplus, allowing the family to retain only 8.65 acres. The family appealed, and the Tribunal later set aside the Revenue officer's order. However, the High Court, on a writ petition by the State, remanded the matter for reconsideration, treating the gift deed as potentially 'benami'. Challenging the High Court's order, the appellants argued that it was legally unsound to treat a valid 1967 gift deed as 'benami' simply because of a law amended in 1989. Agreeing with the appellants, the Supreme Court held that the retrospective application of the amendment could not invalidate a transaction that was lawful and registered decades earlier. 'It would be illogical to assume that one could anticipate future land ceiling laws and structure transactions accordingly,' the bench said. The Court concluded that the High Court had wrongly interfered with the Tribunal's order, as the facts of the case did not permit more than one interpretation. It therefore allowed the appeal and reinstated the Tribunal's decision.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
SC upholds tribunal order in Adani case, nixes discoms' plea
Jaipur: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by Rajasthan's power distribution companies against an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) that ruled in favour of Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd (APRL) for levying a charge of Rs 50 per tonne of coal. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The case is related to a Dec 2017 notification issued by Coal India Ltd, imposing a charge of Rs 50 per tonne as evacuation facility charges (EFC). Adani Power, which signed a PPA with the state's discoms in 2010 for the supply of 1200 MW of power, claimed that the levy constituted a "change in law" under Article 10 of the PPA. A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal held that there was no merit in the plea of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (JVVNL) and Rajasthan discoms. It upheld the APTEL's finding that a levy introduced by Coal India Ltd constituted a "change in law" entitling Adani to compensation under its Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). After the CIL notification, Adani Power notified the discoms of the change in law event, seeking compensation. When state discoms failed to respond, Adani approached the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC), which partially allowed its claims. Both parties subsequently approached APTEL, which in April 2024 ruled in favour of Adani Power. In the order, Justice Sundresh said the statutory levy by a govt entity like CIL qualified as a change in law, triggering the restitution principle enshrined in the PPA. The verdict said that compensation must be provided to restore the power generator to the same economic position it would have occupied but for the change in law. "We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly," it held.
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court directs Rajasthan discoms to pay 186 crore to Adani Power
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Rajasthan's power distribution companies against a ruling of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in favour of Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd, asking them to pay Adani Power around ₹186 crore in compensation. A bench of justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal said on May 23, that it found no merit in the appeals filed by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (JVVNL) and other state discoms. The court upheld APTEL's April 2024 decision that recognised a levy introduced by Coal India Ltd (CIL) as a 'change in law' event under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Adani Power and the discoms. In December 2017, CIL had issued a notification introducing an Evacuation Facility Charge to cover the expenses related to transporting coal from the mine to the destination. Adani Power, which had entered a PPA to supply 1,200 MW of power to Rajasthan discoms, argued that such charge amounted to a sudden change in law and increased its cost of generating electricity. Since the provisions of the PPA protected it from financial losses due to new or modified laws, rules, or charges imposed by the government, Adani Power claimed it was entitled to receive compensation. After the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission partially allowed Adani Power's claim, the company as well as the State discoms appealed to APTEL. The Tribunal held that the new charge levied by CIL was a statutory levy imposed by a government entity and thereby qualifying as a change-in-law event and thus, Adani Power should be paid the compensation by the discoms. In its judgement on Friday, the Supreme Court, too, agreed with the Tribunal's ruling and hence, upheld its order directing JVVNL and other discoms to compensate Adani Power. The court noted that the introduction of the EFC disrupted the economic basis of the PPA and activated the principle of restitution. 'The new statutory levy by a government body like CIL qualifies as a change in law, thereby entitling APRL to be restored to the same economic position as if the change had not occurred,' the court said while dismissing the appeals filed by the discoms. The apex court also upheld the tribunal's direction that compensation to Adani Power should be paid from the date of the CIL notification, along with carrying costs at Late Payment Surcharge rates specified in the PPA. The discoms thus, will now have to pay ₹186 crore to Adani Power in dues, the top court said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
23-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Supreme Court rejects Rajasthan discoms' appeal in Adani Power case
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by Rajasthan's power distribution companies against a ruling by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Aptel) in favour of Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd (APRL). A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal found no merit in the plea filed by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (JVVNL) and other Rajasthan discoms. The court upheld Aptel's view that a levy introduced by Coal India Ltd (CIL) constituted a change in law, entitling Adani Power to compensation under the terms of its Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). Background to the dispute The case stemmed from a December 2017 notification by CIL, introducing an evacuation facility charge (EFC) of ₹50 per tonne. Adani Power, which had entered into a PPA in 2010 to supply 1,200 MW to the Rajasthan discoms, argued that the levy triggered Article 10 of the PPA, which governed change-in-law provisions. Adani Power notified the discoms about the additional charge and sought compensation. When the matter remained unresolved, the company approached the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC), which partially allowed the claim. SC ruling reinforces 'change in law' interpretation The discoms subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now sided with Adani Power. Justice Sundresh, writing the 32-page judgment, held that the new statutory levy by a government body like CIL qualified as a change in law, thereby activating the restitution principle under the PPA. The court affirmed that compensation must be awarded to restore the power generator to the economic position it would have been in had the change not occurred. 'We find no merit in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly,' the judgment concluded. Aptel had earlier ruled that APRL is entitled to full compensation for the change-in-law event related to evacuation facility charges, with effect from the date of the CIL notification.
Indian Express
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
SC allows TN to appoint priests in non-Agama temples in state
Amid the ongoing debate sparked by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, about the extent to which the state can interfere in a community's religious affairs, the Supreme Court has allowed the Tamil Nadu government to appoint 'archakas' (priests) to the state's temples not governed by Agama tradition. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, in an order dated May 14 and made available Tuesday, allowed the state to fill the vacancies in non-Agama temples after a committee set up on the orders of the Madras HC completes its task of identifying the number of Agama temples in the state. The state said the identification exercise is expected to be completed within three months. Agama temples are built and maintained according to ritual and traditions outlined in the Agamas, a collection of Hindu scriptures. On August 22, 2022, while hearing a batch of petitions by the All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam and others, the HC had directed the state to constitute a five-member committee to 'identify the temples constructed as per Agamas' so that the archakas can be appointed accordingly and as per the the SC's 1972 order in Seshammal and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu. In the Seshammal judgment, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the SC had said the appointment of archakas was a secular function. Incidentally, the Centre has cited this judgment in its counter-affidavit filed before the SC justifying the 2025 amendments to the Waqf Act — pointing out that the top court had said 'that because the archaka owes his appointment to a purportedly secular authority [the board or trustees], the act of his appointment would be essentially secular and merely because the said archakas perform a religious function it cannot be said that the appointment is a part of a religious practice or a matter of religion.' The petitioners before the HC had challenged the TN government's decision to appoint those who had undergone a one-year certificate course for archakas, in the state's temples. They contended this went against rituals outlined in the Agamas. In its order, the HC had also said that the appointment of archakas in Agama temples can be challenged as and when the state makes those appointments, according to Advocate G Balaji, lawyer for a petitioner. This was challenged before the SC, with the petitioners telling the top court that despite rulings by the SC and the Madras HC, the state government, 'in scant regard for law, are now attempting to appoint non-believers as archakas, only with a view to destroy the temples in Tamil Nadu'. They added, 'it is well settled that a secular government does not have the power to interfere with the essential religious practices, as such right is well protected under the Constitution of India. Agamas undoubtedly pertains to an essential religious practice, which cannot be tampered with by a secular government'. Issuing notice in the matter on September 25, 2023, the SC had ordered status quo regarding the appointment of archakas in Agama temples. The matter was taken up again for hearing by the bench of Justices Sundresh and Bindal on May 14, 2025. Appearing for a writ petitioner, Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar objected to the appointment of one of the nominated members in the identification committee. The TN government then assured that the official 'would be replaced with a non-controversial person'. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
