Latest news with #Venkataramani
Time of India
07-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
DMRC-DAMEPL dispute: Will wait for a week after which law will take its course, says SC
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will wait for a week for the settlement of the dispute over refund of nearly Rs 2,500 crore by Reliance Infrastructure subsidiary Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited ( DAMEPL ) and Axis Bank to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation ( DMRC ), failing which the law will take its own course. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Axis bank , told a bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh that meetings are going on between both the parties for settling the said if Attorney General R Venkataramani can act as a mediator, though not in his official capacity, it will help resolve the dispute much bench told Venkataramani to keep the details of managing directors of the private firm and the banks and other senior officials ready."We will wait for one week. If they settle the dispute, its fine otherwise the law will take its own course," the bench said as it posted the matter for next hearing on May March 3, the top court said its verdict on the DMRC-DAMEPL dispute of last year needed to be followed in letter and spirit, or it will be bound to take coercive measures against the concerned officials of the private firm and Axis told DAMEPL and Axis Bank counsels, "What is the need to play hide and seek? When there is judgement, you need to comply with it in letter and spirit."The Axis Bank has submitted that it was not party to the dispute for six years and now suddenly it was receiving a contempt notice for said the bank was only operating the escrow account in the bench also said that it was not concerned with the claims and counterclaims of the appearing for the DMRC, said that all the earlier orders were passed against Axis Bank and it cannot be said that they were not aware of the top court had asked Venkataramani to collate the names of the persons and their positions, saying the court will take coercive action, if the need December last year, the top court issued contempt notices to the directors of Reliance Infrastructure subsidiary DAMEPL and Axis Bank for failing to refund nearly Rs 2,500 crore to the DMRC as per the apex court 's verdict dated April last arbitral ruling of 2017 had saddled the DMRC with the liability of paying nearly Rs 8,000 crore to two successive challenges to the award were dismissed by the top court, in September 2021 and November the two verdicts were overturned by the top court on April 10, 2024, on a curative petition filed by the order required DAMEPL to refund DMRC's deposit from an escrow account maintained by Axis dispute pertains to the operation of the Airport Express Metro line in Delhi that was done by DAMEPL, which cancelled the contract in 2012 citing structural defects, and invoked an arbitration clause to seek a termination fee and associated costs, amounting to Rs 8,000 April 10 last year, the top court set aside its own three-year-old judgment that awarded an Anil Ambani group firm Rs 8,000 crore in a dispute with Delhi Metro, and asked the company to return about Rs 2,500 crore it had already received, holding that the previous verdict caused "grave miscarriage of injustice" to a public utility saddled with an exorbitant the curative plea of the DMRC against the 2021 judgement, the top court said the order of the Delhi High Court 's division bench was a "well-considered decision" and "there was no valid basis" for the Supreme Court to interfere with interference by the apex court, in its earlier decisions, resulted in restoring a patently illegal award, it per the arbitral award, DAMEPL was entitled to Rs 2,782.33 crore plus interest in terms of the concession agreement. This amount swelled to Rs 8,009.38 crore by February 14, apex court on September 9, 2021, upheld the 2017 arbitration award enforceable against DMRC, and said there was a disturbing tendency of courts setting aside such quashed the Delhi High Court order that set aside the arbitration award in favour of DAMEPL, which pulled out of an agreement to run the Airport Express Metro line over safety on November 23, 2021, the top court dismissed DMRC's plea seeking a review of its September 9, 2021, judgement, saying no case for review was made by this order, DMRC filed a curative plea, the last legal recourse in the Supreme Court, in 2022 against the dismissal of the review is quite rare, especially in commercial matters, for the top court to reverse its two decisions rendered in an appeal and then in review while entertaining a curative plea.
Mint
29-04-2025
- Business
- Mint
India's bid to be arbitration hub hit by mediator council delay
NEW DELHI : The search for candidates to fill up the Mediation Council of India (MCI) is still ongoing, said attorney general R. Venkataramani on Tuesday, in a sign the creation of the body that will govern and regulate mediators and mediation institutions will get further delayed. The MCI was created under the 2023 Mediation Act, with powers to decide best practices for mediators, as well as handle the duty of registering mediators. At a media briefing in Delhi, Venkataramani said that during consultations with the Union law minister regarding the personnel to occupy the MCI, he had rejected a few shortlisted candidates. The delays in setting up the MCI may have an impact on the overall speed of dispute resolution in the country, hurting India's aim to become a hub for out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration and mediation. Foreign investors also use the quality of dispute resolution within a jurisdiction to ascertain the ease of doing business there. A key function of the MCI is to decide the rules and procedure of mediation in India, and give mediators the authority to conduct such dispute resolution procedures. In mediation, a third party engages with the disputants to bring them to a consensus – often a compromise for both sides. But, the agreement that both parties come to is not legally binding, unlike the decision arising out of arbitration which can be enforced and executed by a court. To be sure, certain aspects of the MCI such as salaries have been notified by the government, but the MCI has not been created yet. Developing standards, rules, and procedures for mediation assumes importance as it is a crucial procedure for resolving commercial disputes. Under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, mediating a commercial dispute is mandatory before approaching a Commercial Court. The only roundabout to skipping the mandatory mediation is to seek 'urgent interim relief' from the court. Urgent interim relief refers to when a court stays further action against a disputed asset till it reaches a verdict. But in a draft amendment to the Act published for public consultation on 8 November last year, the Union law and justice ministry removed the 'urgent interim relief' provision, making mediation completely mandatory in commercial disputes. Commercial disputes are an umbrella term for disputes related to transactions between merchants and traders, import-export, carriage of goods, construction contracts and tenders, franchising and distribution agreements, intellectual property, and insurance, among others. The government has also indicated a preference for mediation over arbitration. That is due to high costs and long-winding timelines in arbitration, which have not benefited the government, the biggest disputant in the country. On 3 June 2024, the Union finance ministry published an office memorandum to all government entities in the country asking them to reduce their exposure to arbitration matters in public procurement contracts where the disputed value is over ₹ 10 crore. Also Read: India open to revising EV manufacturing policy for foreign automakers post US tariff clarity This created a public outcry from practitioners, who claimed that this move would be contrary to the plan of making India an arbitration hub. Mediation is a cheaper and faster alternative to arbitration, the finance ministry advisory said.
The Print
29-04-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Delay in setting up mediation council partly due to HR crunch, says A-G
He said at times 'we don't get the kind of person who ought to be there. We also face this problem with judicial appointments'. Talking to reporters here, the top law officer said there is a problem today in many such statutes becoming functional. New Delhi, Apr 29 (PTI) Attorney General R Venkataramani on Tuesday cited human resource crunch as a reason for the delay in setting up a mediation council two years after Parliament passed the Mediation Act. Venkataramani said when the Union law minister suggested some names, he had certain 'reservations'. He told the minister not to go 'in a great hurry', the A-G said. He said the chief justice of India too asked him to be careful on who is selected for the job. People who want to build networking through the assignment do not help the cause, and those who look beyond such vested interests are required for the job, Venkataramani said. Responding to a question on not getting appropriate persons for the council, he said a human resource crunch is part of the problem. 'We can get them,' he said, expressing hope that the council would be set up soon. Union Law Secretary Anju Rathi Rana said the government is seized of the matter and a decision will be taken soon. The A-G said a proposed conference on mediation on May 3 will probably push the agenda for a mediation ecosystem in the country. President Droupadi Murmu will address the conference, Venkataramani said. The Mediation Act has proposed the setting up of a mediation council of India to regulate mediators. Its other functions include registering mediators, and recognising mediation service providers and mediation institutes. The law lists disputes, which are fit or not fit for mediation. Venkataramani said the proposed conference, which will also have technical sessions, would be attended by judges and chief justices of high courts and state advocate generals. The idea is to make the mediation ecosystem active and vibrant at the state level in the near future, Venkataramani said. Later, speaking to PTI, former law secretary P K Malhotra wondered as to why experts in the field of mediation cannot be finalised for the council at a time when the country does not lack people active in the field. PTI NAB ARI This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hindustan Times
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Delay in setting up mediation council partly due to HR crunch, says A-G
New Delhi, Attorney General R Venkataramani on Tuesday cited human resource crunch as a reason for the delay in setting up a mediation council two years after Parliament passed the Mediation Act. Talking to reporters here, the top law officer said there is a problem today in many such statutes becoming functional. He said at times "we don't get the kind of person who ought to be there. We also face this problem with judicial appointments". Venkataramani said when the Union law minister suggested some names, he had certain "reservations". He told the minister not to go "in a great hurry", the A-G said. He said the chief justice of India too asked him to be careful on who is selected for the job. People who want to build networking through the assignment do not help the cause, and those who look beyond such vested interests are required for the job, Venkataramani said. Responding to a question on not getting appropriate persons for the council, he said a human resource crunch is part of the problem. "We can get them," he said, expressing hope that the council would be set up soon. Union Law Secretary Anju Rathi Rana said the government is seized of the matter and a decision will be taken soon. The A-G said a proposed conference on mediation on May 3 will probably push the agenda for a mediation ecosystem in the country. President Droupadi Murmu will address the conference, Venkataramani said. The Mediation Act has proposed the setting up of a mediation council of India to regulate mediators. Its other functions include registering mediators, and recognising mediation service providers and mediation institutes. The law lists disputes, which are fit or not fit for mediation. Venkataramani said the proposed conference, which will also have technical sessions, would be attended by judges and chief justices of high courts and state advocate generals. The idea is to make the mediation ecosystem active and vibrant at the state level in the near future, Venkataramani said. Later, speaking to PTI, former law secretary P K Malhotra wondered as to why experts in the field of mediation cannot be finalised for the council at a time when the country does not lack people active in the field.
Hindustan Times
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC to consider if its ruling on governors applies to Kerala
A recent landmark Supreme Court judgment regulating the powers of governors to grant assent on bills will not apply to Kerala because the facts of the two cases are different, the Centre told the top court on Tuesday, even as a two-judge bench agreed to examine whether the April 8 verdict had any bearing on the Kerala government's petition against the governor. Kerala first approached the top court in 2023 against the governor. A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi posted the Kerala government's petition on May 6. 'We will look into that judgement and see whether issues raised here are covered,' the bench said when attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the governor's office, respectively, said the recent judgement delivered by a bench headed by justice J B Pardiwala did not cover the issues raised by the Kerala government. Venkataramani and Mehta told the court that they were still examining the Tamil Nadu judgment. 'On facts, this case (filed by Kerala) is essentially need time to make our position clear,' Venkataramani said. Mehta told the court, 'The Kerala case is not covered by the April 8 judgment. I am examining the judgment but on certain aspects we will need court's assistance.' Kerala, represented by former attorney general KK Venugopal, said that all the questions raised by the state were addressed in the Tamil Nadu case. 'The issue we have raised is what is the time limit for consideration of reference of bills sent by state to governor. That is now held to be 3 months. The court will have to innovate based on this judgment,' he said. On April 8, the Supreme Court pulled up Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi for attempting to thwart the will of an elected legislature, declared his decision to reserve 10 re-passed bills for presidential assent as 'illegal', and laid down timelines to curb inaction by governors across the country, in a landmark judgment that reasserted constitutional discipline, curtailed gubernatorial overreach, and reiterated India's federalism. Calling out what it described as a 'growing and dangerous' trend of governors creating political roadblocks to frustrate state governments, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan underlined that governors must function within the four corners of the Constitution and not derail the democratic will of the people expressed through their elected representatives. It ruled that the 10 bills — re-passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly after initially being withheld — were deemed to have received the governor's assent on the day they were returned to him, setting aside any contrary action taken subsequently. The Kerala government approached the top court in 2023 alleging that the governor was sitting on eight bills -- for between seven months and almost two years. The state said that such action by the governor was detrimental for the smooth functioning of the government and defeated the rights of the people. In November 2023, notice was issued on the state's petition, after which the governor referred seven bills to the President. In a subsequent hearing, the bench led by former CJI DY Chandrachud criticised the then Kerala governor Arif Mohammed Khan for sitting on the bills for nearly two years. On February 29, 2024, the President withheld assent on four bills – the University Laws (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2021, the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2022, the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022, and the University Laws (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, 2022. Three bills were approved by the President. Challenging the reference to the President and the President's refusal to grant assent to the bills, the state filed yet another petition in 2024, on which notice was issued by the Supreme Court in July 2024.
