Latest news with #K.K.Venugopal
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court fixes Presidential Reference hearing from August 19, to first hear T.N. and Kerala on maintainability
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 29, 2025) agreed to hear first a simultaneous challenge raised by Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the maintainability of a Presidential Reference questioning the power of the Court to draw timelines for the President and State Governors while dealing with State Bills sent for approval. Supreme Court hearing on Presidential Reference highlights on July 29, 2025 A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai said the hearing on the Reference would kick off on August 19 with the two States, variously represented by senior advocates K.K. Venugopal, A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, getting an hour to convince the Court to return the Reference unanswered. Mr. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, said the Bench must hear the States on the question of maintainability of the Reference before the Union Government began its submissions in support of the presidential questions. 'A preliminary hearing should be held on the maintainability of the Reference. This should be done first,' Mr. Venugopal pressed. Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani intervened graciously, saying the States must get their 'full say', after which he would respond on the question of maintainability and continue with his submissions on behalf of the Reference. The Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar, asked the parties to file their respective written submissions on or prior to August 12. The Union Government would be heard on August 19, 20, 21, 26. The opposing parties would submit their response on August 28 and September 2, 3 and 9. The Union Government would then rebut on September 10. 'Timelines must be followed scrupulously,' the Chief Justice told the lawyers. The Bench said no lawyer, except Mr. Venugopal, would be allowed to appear online. Mr. Mehta supported wholeheartedly, says the distinguished counsel was 'sui generis' (unique). The States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala has urged the Court to dismiss the Presidential Reference, arguing it was really an 'appeal in disguise'. Kerala, represented by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and C.K. Sasi, said the President could only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the Supreme Court. Quoting judicial precedents, including the 1993 Reference in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the State said powers of the Governors and the President under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution have been the subject of three separate authoritative judgments in the cases filed by the States of Telangana, Punjab and, finally, Tamil Nadu on April 8. The State pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala on April 8 had already addressed in detail the questions raised in the Presidential Reference in May. 'When the Supreme Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is. The decision of this Court on a question of law is binding on all courts and authorities. Hence, the President can refer a question of law only when this Court has not decided it,' Kerala submitted. If the government wanted to challenge the April 8 judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative petition in the Supreme Court, and not take the route of Presidential Reference, Kerala has contended.
The Hindu
04-07-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Families of 47 victims of Air India 171 crash victims receive interim payout; lawyers warn against forgoing rights for full compensation
Air India has paid interim compensation of ₹25 lakh each to the families of 47 victims of Air India 171 crash so far, and documents of 55 other claimants are being verified as legal experts with experience in prior aviation disaster cases advise relatives to avoid waiving off their rights to further reparations when accepting interim payments, which have in the past resulted in reduced overall payouts. 'Passengers must be cautious and not sign any undertaking forgoing their rights as we have seen in all previous crashes, be it the bombing of Air India Kanishka AI 182 in 1985, or the more recent Mangalore air crash of 2010 and Kozhikode accident of 2020 involving Air India Express where families received a compensation of a few lakhs instead of a minimum liability of ₹75 lakh ten years ago or nearly ₹1.3 crore five years ago as per international convention,' Sanjay Lazar, aviation consultant and former head of All India Cabin Crew Association, who has helped crew and passengers, in past crashes told The Hindu. Minimum liability The interim compensation of ₹25 lakh is part of the minimum legal liability for airlines in case of death or bodily injury for international flights defined under the United Nations aviation safety watchdog International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)'s Montreal Convention 1999 that will be paid through Air India's insurers. On top of this, Tata Group has announced an ex-gratia, or a voluntary payout, of ₹1 crore for the family of each of the deceased through a ₹500 crore trust it will be setting up. Families of 241 out of 242 passengers and crew onboard the ill-fated Boeing 787 aircraft as well as those of 19 people killed on the ground at BJ Medical College where the aircraft crashed will be entitled to a compensation, in addition to those injured. In October 2023, the Supreme Court issued notices on special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by injured passengers seeking higher compensation following the Kozhikode crash who claimed that they had only been provided a nominal compensation for their losses which they believed was only an interim settlement. Senior advocate and former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, representing the petitioners, stated before the court that the injured had entered into agreements with Air India by which they accepted ₹12 lakh or ₹35 lakh whereas under the Montreal Convention they should have received ₹1.34 crore as a fixed amount. Air India Express had maintained that the complainants could not demand further compensation as they had already entered into an agreement. Of the 190 onboard the Boeing 737 aircraft, there were 21 deaths and several injured passengers. Compensations can far exceed the limits laid down under Montreal Convention as it merely defines airline liabilities, which was raised to 151,880 Special Drawing Rights [an IMF asset whose value is based on a basket of the world's five leading currencies] or ₹1.87 crore approximately for death or bodily injury, and is an unlimited amount when there is airline negligence. The Convention or the Indian law that ratifies it, Carriage By Air Act, 1972, do not regulate how much a passenger can recover, explains Yeshwant Shenoy, President of Kerala High Court Advocates' Association, who helped a family bag the highest compensation of ₹11.5 crore (or ₹7.64 crore and 9% interest for every year there is a delay in payout) following the Mangalore air crash in Triveni Kodkany vs Air India Limited as per a Supreme Court order on March 3, 2020. Mr. Shenoy was also instrumental in Mumbai High Court directing Air India to pay a compensation of ₹8 crore to the family of Captain Zlatko Glusica, one of the two pilots who died in the Mangalore crash, and an appeal on the matter is pending before the top court. As many as 158 of the total 166 people aboard the plane died after a Boeing 737 aircraft overshot the runway and fell into a valley. Judicial precedent For awarding compensation to air crash victims, Indian courts have relied on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides the framework for compensation to road accident victims, Mr. Shenoy explains. The Supreme Court order in Kodkany vs Air India also refers to judgments in the National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation for calculating income and personal expenses for arriving at a compensation. Under Indian law, the key criteria for determining compensation for victim families of crashes is the earning capacity of the deceased. The next two parameters are age of the deceased and the number of dependents. Mr. Shenoy has fought cases before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Labour Commissioner.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
29-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
SC admits Byju's promoters' pleas, next insolvency hearing on July 21
In a significant development in the ongoing insolvency proceedings involving edtech company Think & Learn Pvt Ltd (Byju's), the Supreme Court today admitted the cases filed by the promoters of Byju's. The promoters' lawyers challenged the decision by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai Bench that denied withdrawal of insolvency proceedings initiated by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), despite a full and final settlement of dues prior to the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Presenting the key arguments, Senior Counsel K. K. Venugopal (also former Attorney General of India) said, 'A Rs 158-crore settlement between Byju's and BCCI was fully agreed upon, paid, and formally communicated to the IRP well before the CoC was constituted.' Building further on the argument, Senior Counsel Guru Krishna Kumar sought relief from the Supreme Court: 'The Resolution Professional (IRP) handling Think & Learn's (Byju's) insolvency in India has withdrawn legal proceedings in the US initiated by Think & Learn against the lenders. This is leading to substantial assets of the company in the US being disposed of.' The Supreme Court today heard arguments presented by them and has scheduled the next hearing for July 21, 2025. The Supreme Court, in a partial court working day, also said that the court will consider interim relief on the next date. Valued at $22 billion in 2022, Byju's has seen its fortunes dwindle due to a massive cash crunch, regulatory issues, and disputes with investors, including a battle with US lenders who are demanding $1 billion in unpaid dues, triggering the firm's insolvency.
