Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Category

News

Home / News
News, Top Stories

“Delhi Govt. is expected to continue providing admission to Orphan Children in schools”: Delhi High Court

A PIL seeking the Delhi Government to include orphan children in the Economically Weaker Section category for the purpose of getting admissions in schools was disposed by the Hon’ble High Court. 

By: Dimple

Mr. Harpal Singh Rana filed a PIL before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to be issued to the Delhi government to include orphan children in the economically weaker section (EWS) category for the purpose of getting admission in schools. The division bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan observed that “it expects the Delhi government to continue providing admission to orphan children in government and private schools as it has done so far.”

The PIL was filed to provide financial assistance to those persons who look after such orphan children. 

The Delhi Government submitted a report stating that apart from providing admission in schools, the orphans have also been provided with employment in various sectors, including hospitality, teaching & in non-governmental organizations. The concerns of the orphan children have already been addressed by schemes such as the Child Protection Services Scheme and the Integrated Child Development Scheme.Taking these submissions into consideration, the Court noted that there is no need to further monitor this petition owing to the fact that 225 orphan children have already been given admission in both the private and the Government schools. It is expected from the respondents that they shall continue to arrange for admissions of the orphan children in private as well as in Government schools and also for their employment, as they have already done so far.

News, Top Stories

NCLAT Upholds NCLT’s Order rejecting Insolvency Proceedings Against Tata Chemicals [READ JUDGMENT]

An appeal was filed challenging the NCLT order that had rejected the insolvency application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Tata Chemicals Limited under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC Code’) and the same was upheld by NCLAT.

By: Divyansh

Allied Silica Limited (Operational Creditor) appealed that in 2018, Tata Chemicals (respondent) had entered into a Business Transfer Agreement (‘BTA’) for the transfer of Operational Creditor’s silica business on a Slump Sale basis for a consideration of Rs 123 crore and had transferred only a sum of Rs. 65 Crores and the balance amount of Rs 58 Crores remained unpaid. On account of default, the interest amounted to Rs. 10.44 Crores, and therefore a total of Rs. 68 Crores was due. They further contended that, post-transfer of the undertaking, both parties had mutually agreed to continue their respective rights and obligations to lay down the pipeline, trial run, and satisfactory operation etc with the additional scope of work with other tranche payments, which were separate and distinct from slump sale.

In response, Tata’s contended that the Operational Creditor had suppressed facts and information and that the said debt did not fall under the definition of an ‘Operational Debt’ and the Appellant was not an ‘Operational Creditor’ as defined under IBC.

They argued that the consideration under BTA was divided into a 3 Tranche Payment system and that they had duly paid the Closing Balance consideration and Tranche I and Tranche II payments to the Operational creditor even though there existed a non-completion of Tranche I and Tranche II Conditions Precedent. On account of non-completion of Tranche II conditions precedent by the Operational Creditor, Tata’s had adjusted the Tranche III payment against the improvement costs borne by it and also submitted their reply to the demand notice of the Operational Creditor within 10 days, raising dispute to the claim.

To this, the NCLT had rejected the application, mainly on the ground of pre-existing debt.

A three-member bench of Acting Chairperson Justices Bansi Lal Bhat, V. P. Singh Member (Technical) and Shreesha Merla Member (Technical) stated that the appellant had failed to prove the operational debt and its default and there was a ground of a pre-existing dispute and held –

It is further evident from the Letter of Corporate Debtor dated 06.03.2019, wherein the Corporate Debtor had demanded a refund from the Applicant of Rs 15.01 Crores along with interest for violation of terms of Letter dated 08.01.2019 by the Applicant, in the same Letter the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1522 of 2019 18 of 18 Corporate Debtor had also disputed that the Applicant is in non-compliance of the BTA and therefore is not liable to receive Tranche II and Tranche III payment under the BTA. These disputes by the Corporate Debtor are raised before the receipt of demand notices. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the Corporate Debtor had replied to the Demand Notices within the statutory period of 10 (Ten) days raising disputes with regards to the claim of Applicant and noncompliance of the BTA by the Applicant. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that there is a plausible contention in the defence raised by the corporate debtor which requires further investigation and that the alleged “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence.”

Hence, the Tribunal held that “the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 9 of IBC. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Order. There is no substance in Appeal which is accordingly dismissed.”



News, Top Stories

Calcutta High Court appointed a Committee to ascertain school fees in petition filed for relaxation

The petition was filed to seek relaxation from the previous order for payment which was rejected by the High Court. However, led to the formation of a two-member committee. 

By Diksha 

In the case, Vineet Ruia vs State of West Bengal & Ors., the petition was filed to protest that “schools in West Bengal were unduly demanding the payment of fees without any relaxation amid the COVID-19 pandemic”.

The Coram consisted of Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, appointed a Committee, to receive the accounts in consonance to the income and expenditure of schools to develop an idea of normal income and expenditure. 

On 21st July, the Coram issued the following directions- 

  1. The 112 involved schools shall not discontinue the online classes available to any students irrespective of any conditions till August 15th, 2020.

2. The 112 schools will not prohibit any of the students from participating in the online classes irrespective of any conditions till August 15th, 2020.

3. The Outstanding dues, to the extent of 80 percent, of each student as at July 31st, 2020 shall be cleared by August 15th, 2020.

On August 11th, in the next hearing, the petitioner used social media against the respondent, termed as “propagate his interests in the case”, in addition, the court also said, will exclude the petitioner from the case and appoint an amicus if this behavior is repeated.

The Coram stated that, “The petitioner will refrain from using the social media to propagate the petitioner’s interests in this matter; or else the petitioner may be excluded from the proceedings.” 

On August 17th, the Coram appointed two-member committee while considering parents complaint that despite the ordered notice on 21st July, several schools have not opened for the payment of 80 % of the dues till 31st July, 2020

The Coram proposed a two-member committee, headed by Professor Suranjan Das, the current Vice-Chancellor of Jadavpur University, to undertake the vetting of accounts of all the schools. The other member is Ld. Advocate-General from among recent retired heads of the State Higher Secondary Board or Secondary Board. It is proposed that the committee will be permitted to take the assistance of any accountant or chartered accountant of its choice for the purpose of vetting the accounts of the schools involved in the present proceedings.

It is proposed that the committee to be appointed by this court will receive the accounts pertaining to the income and expenditure of all the schools involved in the present proceedings within a week from tomorrow. The statements should include an overall summary and particulars justifying the heads indicated in the summary of the statements to be submitted by the individual schools. The statements should be certified by the regular auditors or by a chartered accountant. The schools which do not furnish the particulars within the time permitted by the order likely to be passed tomorrow, may be restrained from taking any coercive action against the students despite non-payment of further fees by such students. The particulars to be furnished by the schools should include all figures covering the various heads of income and expenditure for the months January to July, 2020”. – the Coram Directed

News, Top Stories

Delhi High Court directed the Delhi University to conduct the physical examination by September 14

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, directed Delhi University to identify the number of students who are willing to take physical examinations and work out modalities for their stay and transportation.

By Diksha

The Ministry of Human Resource Development, in addition to the Delhi University has directed to submit an affidavit on modalities for ensuring easy access for PWD category students to examination centers for physical examinations by September 14.

The divisional bench consisted of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Subramonium Prasad, further directed Delhi University to submit the students’ answer sheets for online open book exams to develop a clear picture about the efficacy of the entire process.

The Delhi University informed that out of 38,058 students, 36,663 students registered and 33,957 students only uploaded the answer sheets. In the PWD category, 358 students, 308 registered and 258 students actually attempted the examination. 

Mr. BB, on behalf of Grievance Redressal Committee, informed that “Delhi University did not share the passwords of the grievance emails sent by the students”.

The court directed the University to immediately provide with the details of the Grievance Officers to the Committee, while stating that “Why are you maintaining so much secrecy round the passwords? Why are you frustrating the cause of the Grievance Redressal Committee? Should we issue contempt notice to your officers?”.

Petitioner Prateek Sharma informed that, “many students are unable to apply for Post Graduate courses as the University has not provided them with mark sheets for the fifth semester, many other universities are demanding provisional certificates from students who are seeking admissions in Post Graduate courses”. To this, the court directed the university to provide digital mark sheets to the students for the past semesters and directed UGC (University Grants Commission) to issue an advisory to all Universities to not to demand provisional certificates for admissions in PG.

News, Top Stories

SC dismissed the petition seeking to postponement of the NEET/JEE examinations

The Hon’ble Supreme Court today dismissed the petition seeking postponement of NEET/JEE exams which are scheduled in September 2020.

By Diksha

The petition was filed by eleven students from eleven states contending the decision to hold JEE (Main) through online from September 1 to 6 and NEET G-2020 through offline mode on September 13 at 161 center of India are “utterly arbitrary, whimsical and violative of the fundamental right to life lakhs of affected students”.

The petition focused upon the Institution of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has cancelled the CA exams citing COVID-19 risk. Further, the exams like CBSE/ICSE/ISC have also been cancelled while Common Law Admission Entrance Test (CLAT) and the National Institute of Open School exams have also been postponed.

The petitioners mentioned that “Lakhs of young students are likely to appear in the aforesaid JEE(Main) April-2020 and NEET UG-2020 Exams in the months of September 200. Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases are increasing in India at an alarming rate. The deadly pandemic COVID-19 has already affected about 20 Lakh people in India and situation is worsening by every passing day. Conducting the aforesaid examination across India at such perilous time, is nothing else but putting lives of lakhs of young students (including Petitioners herein) at utmost risk and danger of disease and death,”.

The Coram consisted of Justice Arun Mishra observed that life should move on even during COVID-19 times. Justice Asked Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastav that “Are you not demanding that Courts should open? When Courts are getting ready to start physical functioning, how can you say that exams cannot be held? Why can’t exams be held with precautions?”

‘If exams are not held, won’t it be a loss to the country? Students will lose the academic year,’, Justice Arun Mishra said.

The petition seeking postponement of NEET-JEE was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

1 2 80 81 82 83 84 95 96
About Exponent

Exponent is a modern business theme, that lets you build stunning high performance websites using a fully visual interface. Start with any of the demos below or build one on your own.

Get Started
Instagram

[instagram-feed]

Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Youtube
Consent to display content from Youtube
Vimeo
Consent to display content from Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from Google
Spotify
Consent to display content from Spotify
Sound Cloud
Consent to display content from Sound
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages