Latest news with #RulesandRegulations
Indian Express
5 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Over giving quote to media': Bombay HC revokes suspension issued by IIT, reinstates research student
The Bombay High Court has ordered that the suspension of an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)-Bombay research scholar, issued on April 28 for allegedly giving a quote to the media, will cease to be effective from July 25, reinstating him as research student. Akshay M Sawant, a PhD student in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the IIT Bombay and a member of the Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle (APPSC), an informal student collective active on campus, was suspended in April this year following allegations that he gave an 'unauthorised' statement to a news outlet in February regarding his department's initiative to make arrangements for Ramadan. Sawant moved the Bombay High Court against the suspension order issued by the institute which stated that he is suspended until December 31, 2025, an action taken as per the recommendations by the disciplinary action committee. Sawant's plea stated that he had addressed a detailed written communication to the IIT-Bombay explaining how charges levelled against him were unfounded but the Institute's Fact-Finding and Disciplinary Action Committees failed to consider the same. Aarguing that the suspension would have a 'severe and adverse impact' on his academic and career prospects, the petition, sought from the court that the 'arbitrary' April 28 suspension order be quashed and set aside and the Institute be directed to revoke the suspension and restore his entitlements as a student with effect from April 28. On July 15, the petitioner gave an undertaking to the high court that he would abide by all institute Rules and Regulations, including the Interim Guidelines for students of November 2023 related to holding of events at IIT-Bombay. 'In view of the above undertakings, the suspension will cease to have effect from 25th July 2025,' the HC noted. Hearing his plea on July 15 against the suspension, a division bench of Justices Makarand S Karnik and Nitin R Borkar stated that 'the period of suspension undergone by him will not be treated as stigmatic or have a bearing on the record of the petitioner'. The order was made available on Friday. This came after senior advocate Mihir Desai and advocate Lara Jesani for the petitioner submitted that he was willing to put it on record with the IIT-Bombay that he did not make the statements referred to the article in question as an authorised representative of the institute, but the same were made in his individual capacity. Disposing of the plea, the bench further clarified that the order was passed 'in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case so that the academic career of the petitioner should not be jeopardised'. There is no response from the IIT-Bombay administration on the matter. The APPSC on Friday issued a statement in solidarity. 'This case is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader, systemic pattern of targeted actions against student community in general and particularly more harsh towards those who engage in critical discourse around student rights, institutional accountability, and the rights of SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, workers' right inside campus and other marginalised communities to build moral pressure on the administration. It is in this context that we must view the administration's increasingly repressive measures, including the Interim Guidelines on Holding Events at IIT Bombay,' read the statement, demanding withdrawal of the guidelines. The guidelines issued in November 2023 made it mandatory that public events organised by the faculty should be approved by the head of the academic unit, while for events organised by students, official permission is needed from the administration. It also announced that an approval from an 'external speaker review committee' will be mandatory to invite an outside speaker to the institute. The guidelines included a stern warning that disciplinary action will be taken against anyone, including students, who violate defamation rules or indulge in any form of indiscipline.
Hans India
16-07-2025
- Health
- Hans India
KNRUHS issues notification for counselling under convener quota
Hyderabad: Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS) on Tuesday released a notification for counselling for MBBS and BDS seats under the convener quota. Students wishing to participate in the Convener Quota Counselling have been advised to register their details on the university website ( from 8 am on 16 July to 6 pm on 25 July. It has been specified that certificates related to caste and locality must be uploaded at the time of registration. Following the verification of certificates, a merit list will be released featuring eligible state students, and the web options process will then commence. As per norms, 85 per cent of seats in government medical colleges and 50 per cent of seats in private medical colleges are filled under the convener quota. The University on Tuesday issued a notification inviting online applications from candidates who have qualified by securing the cut-off scores or above in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG-2025 for admission into undergraduate medical and dental courses for the academic year 2025-26. The category-wise qualifying criteria are as follows: for the General Category, including EWS, a 50th Percentile with a score of 144; for SC/ST/BC and PWD candidates from SC/ST/BC Categories, a 40th Percentile with a score of 113; and for persons with disability (OC), a 45th Percentile with a score of 127. Should candidates encounter any difficulty in submitting their online application, the following numbers may be contacted: For clarifications on Rules and Regulations: 7901098840, 9490585796. For any other issues, email [email protected]. For technical help: 9392685856, 9059672216, and 7842136688 for technical issues related only to application and exercising web options; email [email protected]. For clarifications regarding certificate verification: 9866092370.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
08-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Delhi High Court grants interim protection to LNG terminal operators
The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to Petronet LNG Limited (PLL) and GSPC LNG Limited (GLL) from coercive action under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board's (PNGRB) Registration Regulations, 2025. Last month, the PNGRB introduced regulations mandating that companies intending to either set up a new LNG terminal or expand existing capacity must register with the regulator. The regulator will issue a registration certificate only after reviewing their detailed feasibility report, business plan, and evacuation strategy, as mandated in the new regulations. The regulations, which were challenged by PLL and GLL, were notified on May 8, 2025, and are effective from May 13, 2025. They require the registration of all entities establishing or operating LNG terminals across India, including facilities in Dahej, Mundra (Gujarat), and other locations. PLL and GLL have also challenged the PNGRB (Eligibility Conditions for Registration of Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal) Rules, 2012. The petitioners argued that the Rules and Regulations unlawfully equate registered LNG terminals to common carrier infrastructure, a classification not envisioned under the parent statute, the PNGRB Act, 2006. The petitioners also argued that the requirement under the new regulations to disclose confidential information goes beyond the scope of the parent Act. The division bench of the court observed that, for now, the petitioners are not required to seek registration under the challenged regulations and ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for non-registration or non-submission of information under the 2025 Regulations. The issue of whether 'confidential' information can be sought by the PNGRB will be decided later by the court.
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Cricket board a state for regulating game but not for recovery process: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain former IPL chairperson Lalit Modi 's plea for a direction to Board for Control of Cricket in India to foot the Rs 10 crore fine imposed on him for FEMA violations during IPL second season organised in South Africa in adjudicating authority in May 2018 had held BCCI and its office bearers liable under various provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and imposed fines of Rs 82.7 crore on BCCI, Rs 10 crore on Lalit Modi, Rs 11.5 crore on N Srinivasan (then honorary secretary of BCCI), 9.72 crore on MP Pandove (then treasurer) and Rs 7 crore on State Bank of Travancore (now merged with SBI).Appearing for Modi, advocate Vikas Mehta told a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan that as per the Rules and Regulations to Memorandum of Association, BCCI was to indemnify its office bearers against all losses and expenses incurred by them during the discharge of their official said BCCI has indemnified Srinivasan and Pandove against the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority in May 2018 but has not yet responded to his request for similar treatment.'There is no basis to distinguish the case of the Petitioner from that of Pandove and Srinivasan by BCCI,' Modi said in his petition challenging Bombay HC's decision not to entertain his writ petition. HC had imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on bench said Bombay HC had rightly rejected Modi's writ petition as it is not maintainable since BCCI is not a state when it comes to civil proceedings, including recovery of money. Justice Narasimha-led bench said, 'BCCI is a state in relation to regulating and conducting the game of cricket in India and hence writ petition could be maintainable only when it related to these two aspects of cricket.'It said that Modi would have the option of approaching civil courts for recovery of the money from the BCCI. Modi's counsel withdrew the petition to approach civil the alleged financial irregularities during the conduct of IPL second season in South Africa in collaboration with Cricket South Africa (CSA), BCCI had initially suspended Modi as IPL chairperson and then expelled him from BCCI in 2010. Some might call the game of cricket a bat-and-ball game. While the definition may have worked back in the 16th century when it was first played in South-East England, it may receive unfavourable support now. We are now living in the 21 st century, and as things have undergone changes, evolution so to speak, the gentleman's game too has evolved into becoming something bigger. Though initially stated to be a children's game by historians, the game has only gone on to become sophisticated and technical, and hence no longer just a game of bat-and-ball. In order to celebrate what we have currently, we ought to honour the past as well. And to take a little walk down the line in regard to the game of cricket, we go to England in the old days. Although cricket now attracts money from all corners, it started its journey as a low-profile sport not pursued by many. Slowly and gradually, the game started getting its recognition. Since then, cricket has also been able to create a junction where different category of people could compete, but most importantly enjoy the same sport. The same movement was triggered in India, when the East India Company introduced to game to the Indian masses. The revered Bombay Quadrangular (held from 1912 to 1936) is one such example. The longest format of the game, Test cricket, has continued to exist even after so many years. In the early 1960s, and once again the story moves to England and its counties, the need for a limited overs format was discussed. The changes were duly made, both domestically and internationally. This meant that the sport would now have a World Cup of its own. When we talk about limited overs format, we are only talking about One day internationals right now since the very popular T20 cricket comes much later in the timeline. The main reason why One Day internationals became a popular choice was because by the end of the game, you surely had just one winner. This paved way for the cricket world cup, which has been played every four years since 1975, with few exceptions in between. During this time, there was a rise in cricket governing bodies. With a new format, there were new teams. The figures were only to increase, with the entry of the shortest format of the game, T20s. Originally introduced by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), T20 games were introduced in 2003 for the inter-county competition. The first men's international T20 match was played between Australia and New Zealand in February 2005 in Auckland. The newest format, the shortest one on the list, provided astonishing moments. One can think about India's win in the inaugural T20 World Cup in 2007, a campaign which included remarkable moments. The game of cricket, whenever altered to provide something new, always leads to a new option. With T20, cricket's own club competition system was introduced. Twenty-twenty gave birth to franchise T20 leagues around the world. The Indian Premier League (IPL), one of the flagship T20 leagues, is probably the best example. This gave fans a chance to watch thrillers on the ground more often than usual. Franchise based T20 cricket tournaments also became huge money spinners, with sponsors jumping onto the T20 franchise cricket bandwagon
Hindustan Times
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC allows Lalit Modi to pursue civil remedies against BCCI
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed former IPL chairman Lalit Modi to pursue civil remedies against BCCI for payment of penalty under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) to the tune of over ₹ 10 crore. Former IPL chairman Lalit Modi to pursue civil remedies against BCCI for payment of penalty under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) to the tune of over ₹ 10 crore. (HT) The order was passed by a bench of justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan on a petition filed by Modi against a Bombay high court decision of Dec 19, 2024 refusing to entertain his writ petition holding that a writ petition is not maintainable against BCCI. The bench said, 'BCCI has been held to be 'state' for functional purposes related to cricket. For recoveries, it cannot be equivalent to state.' The penalty was imposed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against BCCI, Modi and other office bearers alleging FEMA violation in the remittances made by BCCI for staging the 2009 IPL season in South Africa. An amount of ₹ 10.65 crore was imposed on Modi while varying amounts were imposed against other office bearers. BCCI was slapped with penalty of over ₹ 82 crore. At the relevant time, Modi was the IPL chairman and BCCI vice-president. Modi's lawyer, advocate Vikas Mehta submitted that this was a case of discrimination by BCCI which had indemnified the penalty against BCCI secretary N Srinivasan and treasurer MP Pandove, while refusing him the same benefit. 'Why have they denied it to you. Is it personal,' the bench asked Mehta to which he replied, 'Yes. It is personal.' In his petition, Modi said, 'The petitioner is aggrieved by decision of respondent (BCCI) in as much as the respondent has acted in a discriminatory manner by indemnifying N Srinivasan and MP Pandove against the penalty imposed on them vide order dated August 31, 2018 of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).' Mehta cited Rule 34 of the Rules and Regulations to Memorandum of Association of BCCI under which the Board is under an obligation to indemnify the office bearers out of the board's funds against all losses and expenses incurred by them during the discharge of their official duty. He pointed out that the decision to shift the IPL matches to South Africa was a 'collective' decision of BCCI and Modi was discharging his official duties as BCCI vice-president and IPL chairman. 'It is pertinent to note that the said decisions were unanimous and no decision was made by the petitioner in his personal capacity,' the petition filed by Mehta said. The HC order had dismissed Modi's petition with a cost of ₹ 1 lakh. It said, 'In matters of alleged indemnification of the petitioner in the context of penalties imposed upon the petitioner by the ED, there is no question of discharge of any public function, and therefore, for this purpose, no writ could be issued to the BCCI.' Mehta paid the cost levied on him but challenged the finding against BCCI. The top court allowed Mehta's request to pursue civil remedies by filing a suit. The order said, 'The counsel for petitioner has fairly stated that even if petitioner under Article 226 is not maintainable, the petitioner will be entitled to avail civil remedies as per law. Recording this statement, the petition is disposed.' Modi was suspended from BCCI on April 26, 2010. He served as vice-president of BCCI from 2005 to 2010 and chairman of the IPL from 2007 to 2010.
