India top court rejects Vodafone Idea's petition for India to waive telecom dues
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
An establishment stitch-up at the expense of consumers
The market reaction to the Supreme Court's intervention in the car finance mis-selling scandal tells you everything you need to know about this grubby saga. Shares in Lloyds Bank, the UK's biggest car finance provider through its Black Horse brand, jumped as much as 7.5pc when trading commenced on Monday morning, leaving it at the top of the FTSE 100 leaderboard. The share price of Close Brothers, a specialist lender that is disproportionately exposed to the car finance market, surged as much as 25pc having sunk to 30-year lows as the industry braced for PPI-sized payouts. Shares in Bank of Ireland and Barclays, both of which have car finance arms, rose 4.2pc and nearly 2pc respectively. Make no mistake about it, the Supreme Court's ruling is a serious let-off for the banks and other lenders that have a big presence in the car loans space. True, revised payout estimations of between £9bn and £18bn to customers who were mis-selling victims is not to be sniffed at. However, even the top end of the range is less than half the £44bn bill the sector was collectively thought to be facing before the Supreme Court decision. The lower end would be just a quarter. It is a massive result for an industry that fought this case tooth and nail. Anthony Coombs, a former Tory MP and now chairman of lender S&U, whose shares had tanked 33pc at one stage, described it as 'a victory for common sense'. I'm not so sure about that. I certainly share the concerns of many about the shameless ambulance-chasing law firms and claims management firms that have helped fuel Britain's compensation culture. Clearly, it means there is a high risk of people jumping on the bandwagon and lodging bogus claims that the banks then feel the need to recover through higher borrowing costs for all of us. But that's hardly a new phenomenon – there will always be a relatively small number of chancers looking to game the system wherever they can. I'm less inclined to celebrate what has the unmistakable feel of an establishment stitch-up at the expense of consumers. I have a natural aversion to the armies of highly-paid lobbyists who go into bat for big business, skewing what is already a massive power imbalance even further. Consumers already face a David-versus-Goliath battle to be treated fairly. In this case, the scare tactics employed were particularly shameless as industry campaigners sought to ensure the Supreme Court's ruling was as favourable as possible to the banking community. Even now, despite a significant legal climbdown, these same activists felt the need to take to the airwaves to issue fresh apocalyptic warnings. Stephen Haddrill, the director general of the Finance & Leasing Association, claimed the scheme could push up borrowing rates for car-buyers as if somehow large corporations have no choice but to always pass on any additional costs to their customers. The same arguments were rolled out after Covid when companies claimed they were lifting prices to offset their own cost increases and they were no more convincing back then – with research suggesting pandemic profiteering was rife among the biggest companies. As if that wasn't sufficiently disingenuous, John Phillipou, chairman of the Finance & Leasing Association, weighed in too, complaining that there was a risk of harm to Britain's 'investability'. Still, lobbying is what lobbyists do and at least they make no attempt to hide their true intentions. Moreover, Phillipou is only echoing our alarmist Chancellor, and it is surely far more outrageous that she sought to meddle in the outcome. Rachel Reeves has absolutely no business at all involving herself in such matters, while there is zero evidence to back up her suggestion that large-scale payouts represented a threat to growth. Yet, as with the wrong-headed ousting of the chairman of the competition watchdog, the Treasury will stop at nothing in its attempts to deflect blame for Britain's floundering economy from the Chancellor's job-wrecking tax raid. The reasons for the UK's lack of competitiveness are innumerable and too often they can be laid at the door of 11 Downing Street. Reeves's willingness to side with bank bosses instead of standing up for the little man is also disquieting. The job of the Supreme Court judges is to ignore the noise and correctly apply the law but ministers seem to have allowed themselves to be captured by the lobbying fraternity. Voters may see it as another betrayal from a party that has waged war on hard-working families with its tax blitz. As Liberal Democrat MP Bobby Dean rightly said, Government interventions like this set a bad precedent if the reason for intervening is that it might damage industry, 'because then almost every consumer redress case would fall'. Dean, who is a member of the powerful Treasury select committee that polices the City, regulators and the Treasury, points out that compensation schemes give consumers confidence to borrow and invest, 'if they know they will be protected when companies take advantage of them'. It is now down to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to restore the balance after it confirmed it will consult on a redress scheme for those still entitled to compensation. But that hardly inspires confidence. After all, this is the same FCA that was described in a damning report by MPs and Lords just last year, as 'incompetent at best, dishonest at worst'; its actions as 'slow and inadequate.' The chances of the watchdog suddenly showing some teeth seem slim.
South Wales Argus
33 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
FCA considers £950 car finance compensation for motorists
The announcement was made as many motor finance firms were not complying with rules or the law by not providing customers with relevant information about commission paid by lenders to the car dealers who sold the loans, the FCA said. It comes after Friday's (August 1) ruling by the Supreme Court on cases in which the FCA had intervened. While some motor finance customers will not get compensation because in many cases commission payments were legal, the court ruled that in certain circumstances the failure to properly disclose commission arrangements could be unfair and therefore unlawful, the FCA added. Our aim is a compensation scheme that's fair and easy so there's no need to use a claims management company or law firm. We'll publish the consultation by early October and finalise any scheme in time for people to start receiving compensation next — Financial Conduct Authority (@TheFCA) August 3, 2025 The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. FCA issues statement on car finance compensation scheme Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA, commented: 'It is clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules. It's fair for their customers to be compensated. 'We also want to ensure that the market, relied on by millions each year, can continue to work well and consumers can get a fair deal. 'Our aim is a compensation scheme that's fair and easy to participate in, so there's no need to use a claims management company or law firm. If you do, it will cost you a significant chunk of any money you get. What can fail an MOT test? 'It will take time to establish a scheme but we hope to start getting people any money they are owed next year.' Recommended reading: The FCA currently estimates that most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. If the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026. The final total cost of any compensation scheme is currently estimated to be between £9 billion and £18 billion, the FCA added. The consultation will launch by early October.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump's demand that India stop buying Russian oil puts Modi in tight spot
The relationship between India and the US is facing one of its most significant challenges in decades, as the Trump administration doubles down on its demands that India stop buying Russian oil or face punitive tariffs. The US president, Donald Trump, has refused to cut tariffs on Indian exports to the US, as he has for other countries, and on Monday said he would significantly raise them over its purchases of cheap Russian oil, which now account for one-third of its imported oil. 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine,' he said in a post to his Truth Social network, also accusing India of selling Russian oil 'on the Open Market for big profits'. In a previous social media tirade last week, he said of Russia and India: 'They can take their dead economies down together.' Appearing on Fox News on Sunday at the weekend, his hardline deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, did not hold back as he took direct aim at India, stating that Trump had made it clear it was 'it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this [Ukraine] war by purchasing the oil from Russia'. The whiplash the last days have caused in the corridors of New Delhi is palpable. It was only February when India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, was one of the first world leaders to be hosted by Trump and the two men embraced each other and hailed their 'great friendship'. Indian officials were adamant that Russia had not even come up in trade negotiations until Trump's public outburst. India had come to view the US as one of its strongest and most reliable partners, united by the bonhomie between its leaders and growing cooperation on everything from regional security and defence to bilateral trade, intelligence, technology and an increasingly powerful Indian diaspora in the United States. A united geopolitical ambition to counterbalance the power of China had only brought them further together under recent presidents. Yet it did not go unnoticed by India that China – the other big buyer of sanctioned Russian oil, which also has leverage over the US in the form of rare earths – has not received similar threats, and neither has Turkey. Trump's moves have been met with a frosty, if not outright defiant, reception among Indian officials. After Trump told reporters he that had heard India would 'no longer' be buying Russian oil, he was swiftly contradicted by Indian officials over the weekend, who said there would be no change in policy. Under India's 'non-alignment' foreign policy it has maintained a close partnership with Russia over decades while strengthening ties with the US; a position largely tolerated by Washington and reiterated by Randhir Jaiswal, the spokesperson for India's foreign ministry following Trump's threats. 'Our bilateral relationships with various countries stand on their own merit and should not be seen from the prism of a third country,' said Jaiswal. 'India and Russia have a steady and time-tested partnership.' In a column in the Indian Express, Shyam Saran, India's former foreign secretary, did not mince his words. 'Donald Trump was supposed to be good for India in his second presidency,' he said. 'He has turned out to be a nightmare.' Saran was among those who called for India to follow the example of China and Brazil and stand up to Trump. He insisted that although there would be 'pain in resisting Trump … we should be prepared to endure it'. 'Submitting to his exaggerated demands, which are now political as well as economic, would severely undermine India's national interests,' said Saran. 'We cannot give any country a veto over which countries India should or should not partner with.' It is widely agreed among analysts that Modi has now been put in an unenviable position by Trump; either acquiesce to Trump's demands and see loss of face domestically or reject them and face sky-high tariffs – and possibly other punitive actions – that would cripple the Indian economy. The Indian political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta said India was not the exception in mistakenly thinking that 'Trump is purely transactional and that by placating him, pandering to his ego and giving him good headlines, it will be enough to make him quietly dial back.' One of the major sticking points for Modi, he said, was the highly public nature of Trump's threats, which had complicated the possibility of backdoor negotiations over India quietly moving away from buying Russian oil and arms. He pointed out that Trump had already 'frankly humiliated the Indian prime minister' over the recent India-Pakistan conflict in May, where Trump had publicly taken the credit for negotiating a ceasefire – a position vehemently denied by the Modi government in the aftermath. Trump's recent embrace of Pakistan, signing deals with India's enemy on cryptocurrency, mining and oil – and even having the chagrin to suggest India may one day buy Pakistani oil – as well as hosting the Pakistan army chief for lunch in the White House, had only added insult to injury. Mehta said suspicions towards the US in New Delhi now resembled those of 1971, when President Richard Nixon and his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, sent warships to India in what is considered one of the lowest points of the US-India relationship. 'The damage is already done,' said Mehta. 'No matter what deal they come to now, distrust of the US is only going to continue to skyrocket.'
