Vacate DH Rd bldg in 8 wks for Purple Line work: SC
2
Kolkata: Dismissing a special leave petition, the
Supreme Court
asked tenants of City Properties to vacate the premises on DH Road-Ekbalpore Road crossing within eight weeks to facilitate the Purple Line's ramp construction.
TOI had reported on July 3 on the Joka-Esplanade Metro corridor overcoming a major hurdle with a Calcutta High Court division bench dismissing the appeal by tenants of a dilapidated DH Road property, where the Nepal Consulate was to be shifted to allow the Purple Line work.
Following the SC order, the building at 1, National Library Avenue will be demolished and the Nepal Consulate next door will be relocated there. RVNL, implementing the 14-km Purple Line, needs the land at the current Nepal Consulate address (7/1 DH Road) for utility cable diversion and widening of the western side of DH Road, so that 60m of the 450-m ramp can be built.
You Can Also Check:
Kolkata AQI
|
Weather in Kolkata
|
Bank Holidays in Kolkata
|
Public Holidays in Kolkata
Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh of the SC ordered on July 15 that they did not find any ground to interfere with the HC order, particularly when the original owner had no objection and had accepted the compensation. The court gave the petitioners eight weeks to hand over the property "after giving an undertaking that they would vacate the premises, clear all rent/dues, if any, and shall not create any third-party right therein".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel: A request for resolution process
The recent controversial judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd.('Bhushan Steel') ignited a lot of debate on the financial implications caused by the court's invalidation of a resolution plan that was approved in 2019 and even partially executed by JSW Steel – the successful resolution applicant. While the order initiating liquidation against corporate debtor – Bhushan Power & Steel has currently been stayed by the Supreme Court, the far reaching effects of the judgement has been critiqued extensively. The present piece, however, seeks to address a different issue – the impact of the serious procedural violations that have been highlighted in the Bhushan Steel judgment on the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC'). Serious procedural missteps In Bhushan Steel, the Court ruled that the process violated statutory deadlines under Section 12 of the IBC, specifically the 330-day cap, and that the absence of an independent verification of the Section 29A compliance and certain delays in creditor payments rendered the plan fundamentally flawed. As a result, the company was ordered into liquidation—a decision that came not just after judicial approval but after the plan was substantially implemented. The IBC's language in Sections 30 and 31 envisions a linear progression from creditor consensus to judicial approval and then to implementation. It is, however, unclear as to how the plan even passed the muster of the resolution professional and creditors when such fundamental violations were prevalent in the plan approval process. One of the serious procedural misstep that was highlighted by the court was the absence of resolution professional's independent examination of JSW's related party status. The court highlighted that the resolution professional's failure to independently examine the Section 29A compliance goes to the 'root of the matter'. The above procedural lapses are indicative of the poor diligence undertaken both by the resolution professional as well as the creditors. Similarly, it is inconceivable as to how the gross violation of the mandatory 330-day timeline in conclusion of the CIRP proceedings was overlooked both by the NCLT and the resolution professional and creditors. Adherence to procedural rigour As Late Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer famously remarked, 'Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration or justice.' Now, the obvious arguments against the above procedural violations are that, though significant, they ought not to be considered to the detriment of the approved resolution plan in Bhushan Steel, especially since it interferes with the 'commercial wisdom' of the creditors. These arguments, undoubtedly, merit consideration, especially in a case such as Bhushan Steel where the sums involved are enormous. However, key questions arise: Can these violations be brushed aside solely because the CoC exercised its commercial wisdom? Would the violations have been viewed differently if they had been thoroughly considered by the Adjudicating Authority at the first stage of approval? Should the Court have remitted the matter for reconsideration instead of ordering liquidation? The law is now well settled that the deference to the commercial wisdom of the creditors is not absolute, and they can be interfered with when the decisions are 'wholly capricious, arbitrary, irrational and de hors the provisions of the statute or the Rules'. The procedural violations in Bhushan Steel, especially the resolution professional's failure to independently verify the Section 29A eligibility/ineligibility and the breach of 330-day timeline, could plausibly be interpreted as the commercial wisdom being exercised 'de hors the provisions of the statute or the Rules'. The mandatory context under which these procedural safeguards are legislatively designed ought not to be disregarded since it would set a dangerous precedent in other plan approval cases. Any instance of a callous approach by the resolution professional and creditors in the plan approval process could be brushed aside under the garb of the creditors having exercised commercial wisdom. Moreover, the insolvency proceeding being a proceeding in rem, the violations could also operate to the detriment of other stakeholders in the process. Striking a balance The IBC was crafted with the promise of delivering time-bound resolutions to distressed corporate debtors. But nearly a decade on, that aspiration is still being tested. Although the ruling in Bhushan Steel highlights a deep fragility in India's insolvency architecture, i.e., the lack of finality, even after approval and execution, it also exposes the deeper systemic issues in the resolution plan approval process itself. It cannot be gainsaid that the IBC must pivot away from excessive formalism and proceed towards commercially sound closure. At first blush, the breach of the 330-day timeline in conclusion of the CIRP proceedings in Bhushan Steel does not seem like a serious issue when pitted against the larger picture of the Bhushan Steel being revived. If one were to draw an analogy of section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which deals with extension of timeline for conclusion of arbitral proceedings, the law has been well settled that awards passed beyond the arbitral mandate are void. Similarly, if resolution plans were to be approved beyond the statutory timelines and without any formal approval of extension, it not only questions the objective of IBC of providing time-bound resolutions but it also accords an excessive weightage to the commercial wisdom which could be equally detrimental to other stakeholders. The Bhushan Steel judgment should not be remembered as an isolated incident but as a call to action. India's insolvency ecosystem must certainly evolve towards being a transformative tool for corporate recovery rather than a procedural labyrinth. At the same time, the cloak of 'commercial wisdom' ought not to be overlooked by the NCLT while evaluating a resolution plan. (The author is Advocate, Madras High Court)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
Confused about Aadhaar for rent agreements? Here's what the law says
Many tenants and landlords are puzzled over the requirement of Aadhaar in rent agreements. While some say they were asked for it during registration, others insist they completed the process using other ID proofs. This confusion reflects the gap between legal provisions and on-ground practices in different states. Experts point out that Aadhaar is not legally mandatory for rent agreements. Instead, landlords and sub-registrars often accept alternative documents such as passports, voter ID or PAN cards. Concerns about data privacy and fraud have also made some wary of relying on Aadhaar alone. Here's what legal professionals say about why Aadhaar isn't always used and which identity proofs are safer to avoid complications. No law makes Aadhaar compulsory 'There is no law that makes Aadhaar mandatory for rent agreements. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not a mandatory form of identification and has limited its mandatory use to certain government schemes only,' explained Apeksha Lodha, partner, Singhania & Co. Keyur Gandhi, managing partner at Gandhi Law Associates, added, 'Neither the Registration Act, 1908, nor any specific state rules mandate Aadhaar as a compulsory identity proof for property transactions. The UIDAI itself has consistently maintained that Aadhaar is voluntary.' Fraud fears and why Aadhaar is avoided Fake Aadhaar cards and privacy concerns have led landlords and registrars to prefer other IDs. 'Fake Aadhaar cards have been used for renting or selling property, so landlords often prefer documents like passports or PAN, which seem more traditional for identity verification,' Lodha said. Ashutosh Srivastava, partner at SKV Law Offices, cited a Karnataka High Court case where a forged Aadhaar card was used to transfer land. 'Refusals usually trace back to verification anxiety, not an official bar on the document,' he explained. Privacy risks and public data exposure Aadhaar's sensitive biometric data has raised fears of misuse. 'If this data is leaked, it can be used to open bank accounts, obtain SIM cards and claim government benefits,' Lodha noted. Ritha Ulbyre, partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, noted that in registered agreements, Aadhaar details may become part of public records. 'Several instances of financial fraud have been reported in different states after registering documents using Aadhaar-based authentication,' she said. Which documents are safer? To avoid complications, experts recommend using other government IDs. 'PAN card, voter ID, passport, or driving licence are widely accepted and don't pose the same privacy or compliance risks as Aadhaar,' Gandhi suggested. Srivastava advised, 'Provide a combination of IDs for added security, and if Aadhaar is used, mask sensitive details to minimise misuse.'
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC vacates interim order restraining Mumbai airport from deciding on bids to replace Celebi
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday vacated the interim protection granted to Turkey-headquartered airport ground handling and bridge mounting services major Celebi, which had restrained Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) from taking a final decision on tenders to replace the company's subsidiary until further orders. A single-judge bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan referred to a recent Delhi High Court verdict of July 7, which rejected a writ petition by another Celebi subsidiary seeking suspension and annulment of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security's (BCAS's) cancellation of its security clearance in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. The BCAS, amid a backlash over Turkey's support for Pakistan during the India-Pakistan conflict, had in May revoked with immediate effect the security clearance of Celebi's Indian arm, citing 'national security'. The revocation led airports across India where the Celebi group operated, including MIAL, to terminate their contracts with the group companies, prompting the subsidiaries to approach the courts. The Bombay High Court had extended its interim order of May 26, awaiting the Delhi High Court verdict, noting that final permanent replacement of the petitioner would lead to 'irreparable injury' till then. The MIAL was directed not to give effect to the final appointment of a replacement operator till further orders. The high court had noted that after revocation of security clearance, Celebi had lost access to the MIAL premises. However, all its equipment and personnel remained the same and were placed under the control of another firm, Indo-Thai Airport Services, which is not carrying ground handling and bridge mounting services at Mumbai airport. 'Now that Delhi HC has repealed the writ petition, it is now clear that holding up the decision of finding a replacement is not possible and tenable. Continuation of interim protection is no longer reasonable and will not be in aid of arbitral proceedings. Ad-interim protection is vacated,' the high court noted on Wednesday. Justice Sundaresan was hearing two applications by Celebi Nas Airport Services India, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against Adani group-owned MIAL, seeking annulment of its termination of contracts with the petitioner. After it was informed that the conciliation process under contractual agreement between parties was underway, the judge said that in case the same fails, it was open for petitioner Celebi to agitate the same before an appropriate forum as and when such a relief is perceived to be necessary. Disposing of the arbitration pleas, Justice Sundaresan noted that the Delhi High Court, through its July 7 verdict, has not granted any protective relief to Celebi, and multiple high courts had also awaited the Delhi High Court decision. Meanwhile, a division bench of the Bombay High Court led by Justice B P Colabawalla is likely to hear on Thursday the writ petition filed by Celebi Nas against revocation of security clearance cancellation by BCAS. The division bench had deferred the hearing awaiting the Delhi High Court verdict.
