Latest news with #RimjhimSingh
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Trump's 25% tariffs on Indian imports begin with first tranche in force
Trump's 25% tariffs on Indian imports begin with first tranche in force Rimjhim Singh New Delhi
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Automotive
- Business Standard
Govt may fine carmakers missing fuel efficiency targets under new rules
The government reportedly plans to fine carmakers that do not meet fuel efficiency rules; Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) will check compliance Rimjhim Singh New Delhi The government has reportedly introduced draft rules to penalise carmakers that fail to meet India's fuel efficiency and emissions targets. The move aims to close a legal gap despite the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2022 already allowing for penalties. According to a report by The Economic Times, the Ministry of Power has released the Energy Conservation (Compliance Enforcement) Rules, 2025. The draft grants authority to the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) to track compliance with Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) norms and forward violations to state electricity regulatory commissions (SERCs) for penalty decisions. Why it matters India's automotive sector is under rising scrutiny to cut emissions. Eight major carmakers reportedly breached fuel consumption and emission limits in 2022-23, which could lead to ₹7,300 crore in fines. The new draft rules would formalise enforcement and help route penalties into the Central Energy Conservation Fund (CECF), with up to 90 per cent allocated to states based on local sales. Carmakers push back Auto companies, however, argue that the stricter fuel efficiency norms came into effect only on January 1, 2023, and that the current enforcement drive unfairly includes vehicles sold earlier in the 2022–23 financial year. Kia, Renault, and Mahindra & Mahindra are among the companies identified by government data for exceeding the prescribed threshold of 4.78 litres per 100 km and 113 grams of carbon dioxide per km. BEE's new powers under the draft rules If finalised, the rules will empower BEE to: • Monitor fuel efficiency compliance of each car model • Evaluate the degree of violations • Forward cases to relevant SERCs for penalty decisions • Deposit fines into the CECF Cleaner supply chains could cut emissions by 87% A recent study by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) found that India's auto industry could slash emissions by up to 87 per cent by 2050 through the use of green electricity and low-carbon steel. Major manufacturers such as Tata Motors, Mahindra & Mahindra, TVS Motors, and BMW are already aligned with international climate frameworks like the Science-Based Targets initiative. The report found that 83 per cent of the sector's emissions stem from upstream processes like steel and rubber manufacturing. Small alliances could unlock $66 bn annually for climate action Another international study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) showed that a group of fossil fuel-importing countries could raise $66 billion every year to support climate efforts in developing nations, news agency PTI reported. This could be achieved without extra cost to consumers by imposing joint taxes on fossil fuel imports. If extended to cover emissions from global shipping and aviation, the annual fund could grow to $200 billion.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
SC stays Madras HC order allowing Testbook's suit against Google billing
Supreme Court has put a pause on a Madras High Court order that allowed ed-tech firm Testbook to go ahead with its case against Google over billing policies on the Play Store Rimjhim Singh New Delhi The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday stayed a Madras High Court order that had allowed a civil suit filed by ed-tech firm Testbook Edu Solutions against Google India to proceed, Bar and Bench reported. The stay was granted by a Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while hearing an appeal filed by Google challenging the High Court's earlier ruling dated June 11. HC had rejected Google's plea to dismiss suit In its June order, the Madras High Court had dismissed Google's plea under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows a court to reject a plaint at the initial stage. Google had sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that it was barred under the Competition Act and the Payment and Settlement Systems (PSS) Act. Testbook's challenge to Google billing rules Testbook, which operates over 700 mobile applications that provide government exam preparation services, filed the civil suit in July 2023. The company challenged Google's billing policies, including the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) and User Choice Billing (UCB), which impose service fees ranging from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. Testbook argued that these billing models amounted to a "unilateral novation" of its agreement with Google. It claimed the policies violated public policy and exerted undue economic pressure on developers. The firm said it could face revenue losses of up to 26 per cent, and alleged that Google had built its market position by offering services for free in earlier years. In its suit, Testbook also took objection to Clause 15.3 of Google's Developer Distribution Agreement (DDA). This clause limits the legal remedies available to developers, stating that their only option in case of disagreement is to stop using the Play Store. Testbook described the clause as "arbitrary" and claimed it violated the Indian Contract Act. Google's defence Google had argued that the civil suit should be dismissed because the issues raised fell within the domain of the Competition Act and the PSS Act. It also pointed out that similar suits by other developers had previously been rejected by the high court. The tech company relied on past judgments and an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the DDA to make its case, the news report said. High court found Testbook's case distinct The Madras High Court, however, had found Testbook's claims different from earlier cases. It held that the issues raised were specific to Testbook and involved personal contractual grievances, including waiver and tortious interference, rather than competition law violations. It also rejected Google's arguments based on the PSS Act and the jurisdiction clause in the agreement. With the SC now staying the high court's order, proceedings in the civil suit have come to a temporary halt. The apex court will now examine whether contractual disputes of this nature can be heard in civil courts despite arguments of statutory bar under other laws.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
India's IOC buys 7 mn barrels US, Abu Dhabi crude amid Russian oil decline
India's top refiner IOC buys 7 million barrels of crude from US, Canada and Abu Dhabi via tender, as Russian oil imports pause due to narrowing discounts and rising sanctions Rimjhim Singh New Delhi India's top oil refiner, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), has purchased 7 million barrels of crude oil from the US, Canada and West Asia to be delivered in September, news agency Reuters reported. This big purchase comes as Indian refiners slow down buying Russian oil due to smaller discounts. What IOC bought from three regions *4.5 million barrels of US crude *500,000 barrels of Canada's Western Canadian Select (WCS) *2 million barrels of Das crude from Abu Dhabi These purchases came through a spot tender, which closed last Friday. Multiple traders handled the deliveries: *Mercuria will supply two million barrels of the same *Vitol will supply one million barrels of WTI Midland and WCS *Trafigura will deliver one million barrels of Das crude Why it matters The deal comes as Indian state refiners paused Russian crude purchases due to narrowing price benefits. The US crude became more affordable for Asia recently, opening an opportunity for buyers like IOC. Reuters quoted two sources as saying that this large purchase was made in part to replace Russian barrels. India is the third-largest oil importer in the world and one of the biggest buyers of seaborne Russian crude. Last week, President Trump announced: *A 25 per cent tariff on all Indian exports to the US starting August 7 *A penalty for India's continued purchases of Russian military and energy equipment This comes after both nations failed to finalise an interim trade deal despite five rounds of discussions. Cold pause on Russian crude The IOC and other state-run refiners like HPCL, BPCL, and MRPL have reportedly not bought Russian oil in the last week, Reuters reported. This comes at a time when the European Union imposed more sanctions on Russian energy. Trump slams India-Russia ties Last week, US President Donald Trump criticised India's trade relationship with Russia. He said, 'I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.' On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump also took aim at India's high tariffs: 'Their tariffs are too high, among the highest in the world.' He said this has led to very little business between the US and India. US sanctions 6 Indian firms over Iran petrochemical trade Last week, the United States imposed sanctions on six Indian companies for allegedly engaging in multi-million dollar transactions involving Iranian petroleum and petrochemical products, including methanol, polyethylene, and toluene. The action, part of a global crackdown on violations of US sanctions against Iran, freezes these firms' US-based assets and bars American entities from doing business with them. Alchemical Solutions Pvt Ltd tops the list, accused of importing $84 million worth of Iranian petrochemicals in 2024.
Business Standard
28-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Presidential reference hides binding rulings on Governors: Kerala tells SC
State of Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to reject Presidential reference on Governors' assent timelines, saying it suppresses key rulings and misuses Article 143 to reopen already settled issues Rimjhim Singh New Delhi The state of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court, challenging the Presidential reference that seeks the court's opinion on the time limits for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, Bar and Bench reported. Advocate of the Kerala state has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference without answering the questions raised, arguing that the matter has already been settled by previous rulings of the court. The state said, the reference hides key constitutional judgments, making it legally weak and misleading. Kerala's argument: Reference is not maintainable The Presidential reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 key issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. Kerala has strongly opposed this, calling the entire basis of the reference 'flawed'. The state of Kerala objected especially to the suggestion that Article 200 does not specify any deadline for a Governor to act on a Bill. 'This is amazing,' the application states, '…and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the Hon'ble President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'.' Kerala said that the issues raised have already been clarified by the Supreme Court in three important cases: * State of Telangana vs Secretary to the Governor of Telangana * State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab * State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481) According to the application, 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference were directly settled in the Tamil Nadu case, which was delivered just one month before the reference was made. Kerala argued that this judgment was not even mentioned in the reference — a serious omission, the news report said. 'Court cannot be misled or asked to overrule itself' Kerala state mentioned that the omission of these judgments is a way to mislead the top court into reviewing and possibly overruling its own decisions, something that cannot be done through a Presidential reference. 'The present reference suppresses the single important aspect,' Kerala said, '…that the first 11 queries are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… the existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference.' The state also said that the Union government never challenged the Tamil Nadu ruling by filing a review or curative petition. Therefore, the verdict is final under Article 141 and cannot be questioned again through a different route. Reference misuses presidential power, Kerala alleges Calling the reference 'a serious misuse' of Article 143, Kerala stated that the top court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own settled judgments. It also said that the President cannot use Article 143 to indirectly reopen legal questions that have already been answered, the news report said. What the Supreme Court had held earlier In April 2025, a Supreme Court Bench ruled that the Governor's inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. It said that while Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Governor must act 'within a reasonable time' and not stall the democratic process. On the President's powers under Article 201, the court ruled that decisions must be made within three months. If there is any delay, the reasons must be given to the concerned state. Following this, President Droupadi Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow courts to set such deadlines or suggest 'deemed assent' in case of delays. Kerala, however, said that the Court's rulings are final and that the President's reference is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
