Latest news with #Datta
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Think Gas to invest ₹10,000 cr, aims for top spot in city gas distribution
Think Gas is poised to become the number one city gas distribution (CGD) player in India in the next five years, with plans lined up to invest around ₹10,000 crore, said a top company executive on Wednesday. The company said that the proposed merger between AG&P Pratham and Think Gas will be complete by the first half of 2026, through which it will overtake Indraprastha Gas (IGL), Mahanagar Gas (MGL), and Gujarat Gas to become the second-largest CGD company in India. 'The merger will be complete within the next nine months. We will become the second-largest CGD company, next only to Adani Total Gas, through this,' said Chiradeep Datta, director and chief operating officer, Think Gas. 'We are also planning to invest around Rs 10,000 crore over the next five years to get into the numero uno position,' he told Business Standard. The company has already invested around ₹8,000 crore in the segment. It is awaiting clearance from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) for the deal. Datta added that the company also has plans to utilise its retail network to sell liquefied natural gas (LNG), set up charging points for electric vehicles, and also retail petrol and diesel — an idea already under consideration by the government. It was in February 2025 that both AG&P Pratham and Think Gas announced the merger to form Think Gas. I Squared Capital will be a major shareholder in the combined entity, while other shareholders include Osaka Gas, Sumitomo Corporation, Konoike Group, Japan Overseas Infrastructure Investment Corporation for Transport and Urban Development (JOIN), and AG&P Global. 'Our target is to have over 1 million households and 1,500 fuelling stations in the next few years, from around 550,000 houses and 500 outlets in our network now,' said Datta. Interestingly, media reports indicate that Adani Total Gas already has over 1.1 million residential customers for piped natural gas (PNG) and over 1,000 compressed natural gas (CNG) stations, in addition to 10,417 industrial and commercial customers. Think Gas's network spans 19 geographical areas (GAs) across Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, comprising around 17,000 inch-km of steel pipeline connecting industrial and commercial establishments. Datta said the leadership team of both companies has already been integrated, with Abhilesh Gupta as managing director and chief executive officer. Similarly, for technology integration, it has joined hands with ABB India Ltd, which is offering end-to-end automation and digitalisation of their network across 10 states. Using ABB's cloud-based automation platform, Think Gas has centralised operations and real-time visibility of its CGD networks from its control room in Chennai. 'By digitalising and centralising our natural gas distribution networks, we have significantly boosted operational efficiency, optimised manpower requirements, and leveraged real-time data to make better decisions,' he added. In a statement, the company said it will increase its pipeline network to 24,000 inch-km, feeding over 2,000 CNG stations and 180 million customers in the next few years, and covering 324,000 square kilometres.
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
SC questions Justice Varma's conduct, says he moved the apex court only after in-house inquiry results became ‘unpalatable'
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) questioned the conduct of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, saying he had moved the Supreme Court against the in-house inquiry procedure initiated by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna only after the outcome of the probe had become 'unpalatable' for him. The report of an in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed the presence of 'burnt currency' in a gutted outhouse at Justice Varma's residential premises in New Delhi after a fire in mid-March. The in-house inquiry, appointed by the then Chief Justice Khanna, had recommended his removal. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister in May, seconding the recommendation of the inquiry panel. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih said the in-house procedure was carefully devised through multiple Supreme Court judgments as a mechanism to preserve the institutional integrity and moral vigour of the judiciary. Article 141 of the Constitution made apex court judgments binding on all. Justice Datta said the in-house procedure had been in existence for over 30 years now. Every High Court or Supreme Court judge, including Justice Varma, knew since the time of taking the oath of office that she or he would be subject to a probe if the situation called for it. The Chief Justice of India was not a 'post office' to blindly pass on complaints or allegations to the Parliament, Justice Datta said. The Bench explained the in-house procedure was meant to fill a 'yawning gap'. It was a procedure in which a CJI-appointed committee held a preliminary inquiry into the allegations in order for the CJI to take an informed decision, and if required, recommend the removal of a judge. The Bench said Justice Varma, having once submitted to the jurisdiction of the in-house panel, could not turn back and call it 'illegal'. 'Once the High Court judge has submitted to the in-house inquiry procedure, he has to accept the outcome. His conduct does not inspire. He has challenged the procedure once the outcome became unpalatable,' Justice Datta said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said if the in-house procedure was so sacrosanct, what was the need for a motion in the Parliament. The former alone would suffice to remove a judge. He argued Articles 124 (4) and (5), and Article 218 provided a complete mechanism for removal of a judge. 'Any other mechanism is outside the Constitution,' Mr. Sibal said. He urged the point that Justice Varma had no other place except the Supreme Court to challenge the in-house inquiry and the recommendation to remove him. 'The High Court judge cannot challenge the in-house inquiry report, which has triggered the removal motion, in the Parliament. That is why I have come to the Supreme Court now,' Mr. Sibal submitted on behalf of Justice Varma. He contended that the in-house inquiry process was only an 'informal, administrative exercise' with no strict or codified standards of evidence, unlike the probe under the Judges Inquiry Act. 'Yet, the in-house inquiry report and the CJI's recommendation for removal has sounded the death-knell… become a trigger and a prompt for the removal of the High Court judge. It is evident that the report and the recommendation of the CJI has more than a persuasive value as the Parliament has already commenced his removal motion,' Mr. Sibal submitted. The senior lawyer said the CJI had only a moral and ethical power over other judges. He could not embark on a probe against a judge and recommend the latter's removal. However, Justice Datta referred Mr. Sibal to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Section 3(2) provided the Centre, State, Supreme Court, a High Court or any other other authority 'to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a judge'. Justice Datta asked whether in-house procedure would come under the ambit of 'otherwise' in the provision. 'If so, the CJI has not only moral and ethical but also legal power too,' Justice Datta observed. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also on behalf of Justice Varma, said that in earlier cases of in-house procedure, the judge in question was given an opportunity to present his views before and after the in-house inquiry report. But this had not been followed in the current case. The Bench reserved judgment on the petition challenging the validity of the in-house procedure against Justice Varma, and the subsequent recommendation of Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) to remove him. The court also reserved a decision on advocate Mathews Nedumpara's petition seeking registration of a criminal case against the High Court judge. Justice Datta had asked Mr. Nedumpara whether he had even filed a complaint before the police for the registration of a First Information Report.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Your comments are proof why Renukaswamy's family needs justice: Ramya slams Darshan fans
Actress Ramya is once again facing a wave of online trolling for speaking out in support of Renukaswamy's family — the victim in the ongoing murder case linked to actor Darshan . Last week, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the Karnataka High Court's decision to grant bail to Darshan, questioning the rationale behind the order and suggesting it nearly amounted to an acquittal. Sharing a screenshot of this development, Ramya took to Instagram to demand justice for Renukaswamy's death, and wrote: 'SC is a ray of hope for the common people of India- justice for the family of Renukaswamy.' However, her post did not sit well with Darshan's fanbase, many of whom flooded her comments section with abusive and hateful messages. Unfazed, Ramya responded with a sharply worded Instagram Story that read: 'To all the DBoss fans — Welcome to my Instagram :) Your comments are proof why Renukaswamy's family needs justice!' This isn't the first time Ramya has been targeted. Last year, shortly after Darshan's arrest, she had posted, 'No one is above the law. No one should take the law into their hands.' That too had triggered a wave of trolling from his supporters. Meanwhile, Darshan — currently out on bail — has been on a temple run, recently spotted visiting multiple temples across Karnataka. He had also traveled to Thailand last week to shoot portions of his upcoming film Devil, and returned to Bengaluru two days ago. Ramya and Darshan have shared the screen in two Kannada films — Datta and Snehana Preethina.
News18
23-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
'Come Argue In Person': SC To Woman Insisting On Virtual Hearing, Offers To Pay Expenses
Last Updated: A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the woman, who was representing herself The Supreme Court on Wednesday urged a woman litigant to appear in person to argue her case, after she insisted on continuing via video conferencing (VC). The Court even offered her travel expenses and free legal aid, but she declined, citing personal and work commitments. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the woman, who was representing herself. When the Court asked why she could not attend physically despite being offered assistance by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), she said she had to care for someone in her family, lived far away, and was also working, Live Law reported. She added that technical issues from previous hearings had been resolved. However, Justice Datta observed that she kept looking at someone off-screen when the bench asked her questions. She first said they were co-petitioners but later claimed she was the only petitioner, leading the bench to caution her against making contradictory statements. 'Livelihood is more important or you want to argue your case? You can't spare even one day to argue the case you are pursuing?" Justice Datta asked. The woman replied that her livelihood came first. The Court then offered to appoint a Supreme Court lawyer of her choice free of cost and cover her travel expenses to Delhi, but the woman stood firm on her VC request. 'What is the problem with my arguing? I want to understand that. I want to understand what's the problem in my VC appearance," she asked. Justice Datta replied, 'We are at a loss to understand what prevents you from coming here!." 'If you want your submissions to be heard, it has to be in-person. We are requesting you to come to Delhi. All the expenses will be borne by NALSA," he added. The case is linked to the Lalita Kumari judgment. The Court pointed out that previous rulings held that contempt petitions cannot be filed by someone not party to that case. Justice Kant said the woman could be allowed to argue that those rulings need reconsideration. Before the hearing ended, the Court asked her to make up her mind. She replied, 'I have made up my mind." view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Tripura BJP activists visit CPM ex-MP Sankar Prasad Datta to protest his Hanuman remark: ‘We'll pray he gains knowledge'
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal protested in Agartala on Tuesday against an allegedly derogatory remark about Lord Hanuman made by former CPM MP Sankar Prasad Datta. They burned Datta in effigy and demanded that he apologise for the remark he allegedly made while speaking at a CITU conference two days ago. 'A few days back, the CPM leader called Lord Hanuman 'shonda' (bully). Hanumanji is our deity. Protesting against this, we burnt his effigy. We will recite Hanuman Chalisa in front of his home and we will compel him to seek an apology in front of Hanumanji and God in our presence,' said a VHP leader. A group of BJP activists visited Datta's home and offered him a portrait of Lord Hanuman and Hanuman chalisa. 'They (CPM) have made derogatory remarks about Hindu religion on several occasions. The BJP brings out people from darkness to light. We came to his house today with Hanuman Chalisa. We will pray that he gains knowledge and may Lord Hanuman forgive him,' said a BJP activist. The BJP's youth wing, the Tripura Pradesh Yuva Morcha, also protested against the remark in the capital city. 'The entire state has condemned the incident. We demand Sankar Prasad Datta should be immediately arrested. We have seen earlier that they tried to hurt our religious sentiments. After the rally, we will recite Hanuman chalisa near the Kali temple at Melarmath,' a protester said. Datta or the CPM has not reacted to the controversy.
