Latest news with #Commission
Deccan Herald
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
Karnataka govt appoints five members to OBC commission for fresh caste survey
With the appointment of members, the Commission headed by former advocate-general Madhusudhan Naik is expected to start work on conducting a fresh Social & Educational Survey (caste census).
Euractiv
8 hours ago
- Business
- Euractiv
Trump suggests EU's digital rules are on the table in trade talks
Donald Trump suggested on Friday that the EU's enforcement of its Big Tech laws is on the table in ongoing trade talks that could see the EU make concessions in order to avoid certain tariffs. The US president announced the immediate suspension of trade talks with Canada via a post on his Truth Social platform over their tax on US technology companies. In enforcing their digital services tax, Canada was "obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us," he said. The EU does not tax US tech firms specifically, but Trump has previously criticised the bloc's laws to rein in anticompetitive behaviour by those firms and moderate the content they publish – the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, respectively. These rules include fines for non-compliance following investigations. Trump's Friday post is a suggestion that EU negotiators may be discussing how those laws are enforced against US firms in their talks on a deal to lower tariffs on European exports across the Atlantic. The European Commission denied Trump's suggestion. "We have been very clear on the sovereignty of our decision-making process, including our digital laws, they are untouchable," a spokesperson said. "We are still fully and deeply engaged in negotiations," they added. Trump's comments come just a day after EU leaders were divided on whether to accept a baseline 10% tariff on exports to the US – while possibly imposing their own retaliatory 10% tariff – at their summit in Brussels on Thursday. The Wall Street Journal , citing a leaked draft agreement, reported last week that the EU and US could enter into a formal dialogue on the Digital Markets Act following the trade deal – with US firms exempted from enforcement during those talks. That prompted a strong denial from the Commission's top US trade official, Matthias Jorgensen, who told MEPs this week that putting "the EU's regulatory autonomy on the table" was "not an option for us'. At this week's G7 summit in Canada, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Trump agreed to find a solution to the trade spat before 9 July. Von der Leyen told EU leaders on Thursday that she had received the latest counterproposal from the US.
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
24 ‘registered unrecognised political parties' under Election Commission scanner
At least 24 political parties from Tamil Nadu that have been categorised as 'registered unrecognised political parties' are likely to be issued show cause notices by the Election Commission of India, as they have not contested even a single election during the past six years. Political parties registered under provisions of Section 29A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, are entitled to many benefits - exemption from income tax (under Section 13A of the IT Act), recognition (under para 6 of symbols order), common symbol allotment and nomination of star campaigners, among others. The purpose of registration of an association as a political party with the Commission under the Section 29A of the Act was to avail of the provisions of that part for the purposes of the RP Act, 1951, which meant participation in elections conducted by the Commission. 'Over time, a large number of political parties have been registered. However, it has come to the notice that many of the registered unrecognised political parties have not contested even a single election for the last six years since 2019 and many of them have ceased to exist,' a communication from the Commission to the Chief Electoral Officer said. It further directed the CEO to issue show cause notices to each of the 24 political parties and on hearing their response, it directed the CEO to send a detailed proposal with recommendation as to whether it should be delisted.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Meta may face daily fines over pay-or-consent model: European Commission
Meta Platforms may face daily fines if EU regulators decide the changes it has proposed to its pay-or-consent model fail to comply with an antitrust order issued in April, they said on Friday. The warning from the European Commission, which acts as the EU competition enforcer, came two months after it slapped a 200-million-euro ($234 million) fine on the US social media giant for breaching the Digital Markets Act (DMA) aiming at curbing the power of Big Tech. The move shows the Commission's continuing crackdown against Big Tech and its push to create a level playing field for smaller rivals despite US criticism about the bloc's rules mainly targeting its companies. Daily fines for not complying with the DMA can be as much as 5 per cent of a company's average daily worldwide turnover. The EU executive said Meta's pay-or-consent model introduced in November 2023 breached the DMA in the period up to November 2024, when it tweaked it to use less personal data for targeted advertising. The Commission has been scrutinising the changes since then. The model gives Facebook and Instagram users who consent to be tracked a free service that is funded by advertising revenues. Alternatively, they can pay for an ad-free service. The EU competition watchdog said Meta will only make limited changes to its pay-or-consent model rolled out last November. "The Commission cannot confirm at this stage if these are sufficient to comply with the main parameters of compliance outlined in its non-compliance Decision," a spokesperson said. "With this in mind, we will consider the next steps, including recalling that continuous non-compliance could entail the application of periodic penalty payments running as of 27 June 2025, as indicated in the non-compliance decision." Meta accused the Commission of discriminating against the company and for moving the goalposts during discussions over the last two months. "A user choice between a subscription for no ads service or a free ad supported service remains a legitimate business model for every company in Europe - except Meta," a Meta spokesperson said. "We are confident that the range of choices we offer people in the EU doesn't just comply with what the EU's rules require - it goes well beyond them." The EU watchdog dismissed Meta's discrimination charges, saying the DMA applies equally to all large digital companies doing business in the EU regardless of where they are incorporated or who their controlling shareholders are. "We have always enforced and will continue to enforce our laws fairly and without discrimination towards all companies operating in the EU, in full compliance with global rules," the Commission spokesperson said.
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Nat'l Insurance Co wins appeal in car robbery claim
Panchkula: The Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Panchkula) has overturned a previous district court ruling that had directed National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay Rs 3.17 lakh to a complainant whose insured vehicle was allegedly stolen. In its order pronounced on June 13, the Commission allowed the insurer's appeal while dismissing a cross-appeal filed by the complainant seeking enhanced compensation. The case involved Mahipal Singh Rana, a resident of Sector 32, Kurukshetra, who claimed that his car (No. HR-26U-0018), insured with National Insurance from May 2012 to May 2013, was snatched at gunpoint on Dec 6, 2012. According to the complaint, he was forcibly thrown out of the car by two unknown assailants after being threatened with death. He claimed the robbers also stole two mobile phones, Rs 9,000 in cash, identity documents, bank cheques, and important car papers. Mahipal lodged a police complaint the same day, resulting in the registration of an FIR (no. 279) under IPC sections 382, 365, 392 and 34. However, the insurer repudiated the claim, alleging non-cooperation and delay in informing them. The district consumer forum had earlier directed National Insurance to pay the insured value of the vehicle within 60 days, prompting the company to challenge the decision. In its judgment, the state commission held that Mahipal's conduct cast serious doubts on his claim. It noted that while the incident occurred in Dec 2012, the insurer was only formally informed in Dec 2015 — an "inexplicable and inordinate delay" that severely undermined the credibility of the claim. Moreover, the commission highlighted Mahipal's contradictory conduct during criminal proceedings. Though he had earlier identified the accused during police investigation, he refused to recognise them during trial, resulting in their acquittal by a Delhi court in June 2015. This clearly indicates the complainant had not only failed to cooperate with the insurer's investigation, as mandated by the policy, but also actively undermined the prosecution, as observed by the Commission. Insurance is a contract, and its terms are binding. Breach of cooperation and unexplained delay are fatal to the claim. The Commission, therefore, allowed the insurer's first appeal (no. 355 of 2018) and set aside the district court's order dated Jan 17, 2018. In consequence, Mahipal Singh Rana's cross-appeal (F.A. no. 879 of 2018) seeking additional compensation for mental agony, litigation costs, and interest was also dismissed. The Commission also ordered that the statutory deposit of ₹25,000 made by National Insurance at the time of filing the appeal be refunded, subject to verification. This ruling highlights the importance of timely reporting and full cooperation in insurance claim processes and is expected to serve as a precedent in similar cases of delayed intimation and alleged claimant misconduct. BOX UNRAVELLING THE CASE Who is the owner of the car? Mahipal Singh Rana, a resident of Sec 32, Kurukshetra What was his claim? He claimed that his car, insured with National Insurance from May 2012 to May 2013, was snatched at gunpoint on Dec 6, 2012. According to the complaint, he was forcibly thrown out of the car by two unknown assailants after being threatened with death. He claimed the robbers also stole two mobile phones, ₹9,000 in cash, identity documents, bank cheques, and important car papers. Mahipal lodged a police complaint the same day, resulting in the registration of an FIR under IPC sections 382, 365, 392 and 34 Why did the insurer reject his claim? The insurer repudiated the claim, alleging non-cooperation and delay in informing them. The district consumer forum had earlier directed National Insurance to pay the insured value of the vehicle within 60 days, prompting the company to challenge the decision What discrepancies did the state consumer forum find? It noted that while the incident occurred in Dec 2012, the insurer was only formally informed in Dec 2015 — an "inexplicable and inordinate delay" that severely undermined the credibility of the claim. Besides, though he had earlier identified the accused during police investigation, he refused to recognise them during trial, resulting in their acquittal by a Delhi court in June 2015 Panchkula: The Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Panchkula) has overturned a previous district court ruling that had directed National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay Rs 3.17 lakh to a complainant whose insured vehicle was allegedly stolen. In its order pronounced on June 13, the Commission allowed the insurer's appeal while dismissing a cross-appeal filed by the complainant seeking enhanced compensation. The case involved Mahipal Singh Rana, a resident of Sector 32, Kurukshetra, who claimed that his car (No. HR-26U-0018), insured with National Insurance from May 2012 to May 2013, was snatched at gunpoint on Dec 6, 2012. According to the complaint, he was forcibly thrown out of the car by two unknown assailants after being threatened with death. He claimed the robbers also stole two mobile phones, Rs 9,000 in cash, identity documents, bank cheques, and important car papers. Mahipal lodged a police complaint the same day, resulting in the registration of an FIR (no. 279) under IPC sections 382, 365, 392 and 34. However, the insurer repudiated the claim, alleging non-cooperation and delay in informing them. The district consumer forum had earlier directed National Insurance to pay the insured value of the vehicle within 60 days, prompting the company to challenge the decision. In its judgment, the state commission held that Mahipal's conduct cast serious doubts on his claim. It noted that while the incident occurred in Dec 2012, the insurer was only formally informed in Dec 2015 — an "inexplicable and inordinate delay" that severely undermined the credibility of the claim. Moreover, the commission highlighted Mahipal's contradictory conduct during criminal proceedings. Though he had earlier identified the accused during police investigation, he refused to recognise them during trial, resulting in their acquittal by a Delhi court in June 2015. This clearly indicates the complainant had not only failed to cooperate with the insurer's investigation, as mandated by the policy, but also actively undermined the prosecution, as observed by the Commission. Insurance is a contract, and its terms are binding. Breach of cooperation and unexplained delay are fatal to the claim. The Commission, therefore, allowed the insurer's first appeal (no. 355 of 2018) and set aside the district court's order dated Jan 17, 2018. In consequence, Mahipal Singh Rana's cross-appeal (F.A. no. 879 of 2018) seeking additional compensation for mental agony, litigation costs, and interest was also dismissed. The Commission also ordered that the statutory deposit of ₹25,000 made by National Insurance at the time of filing the appeal be refunded, subject to verification. This ruling highlights the importance of timely reporting and full cooperation in insurance claim processes and is expected to serve as a precedent in similar cases of delayed intimation and alleged claimant misconduct. BOX UNRAVELLING THE CASE Who is the owner of the car? Mahipal Singh Rana, a resident of Sec 32, Kurukshetra What was his claim? He claimed that his car, insured with National Insurance from May 2012 to May 2013, was snatched at gunpoint on Dec 6, 2012. According to the complaint, he was forcibly thrown out of the car by two unknown assailants after being threatened with death. He claimed the robbers also stole two mobile phones, ₹9,000 in cash, identity documents, bank cheques, and important car papers. Mahipal lodged a police complaint the same day, resulting in the registration of an FIR under IPC sections 382, 365, 392 and 34 Why did the insurer reject his claim? The insurer repudiated the claim, alleging non-cooperation and delay in informing them. The district consumer forum had earlier directed National Insurance to pay the insured value of the vehicle within 60 days, prompting the company to challenge the decision What discrepancies did the state consumer forum find? It noted that while the incident occurred in Dec 2012, the insurer was only formally informed in Dec 2015 — an "inexplicable and inordinate delay" that severely undermined the credibility of the claim. Besides, though he had earlier identified the accused during police investigation, he refused to recognise them during trial, resulting in their acquittal by a Delhi court in June 2015
