Debt-ridden firms Idea and Vodafone India are in process of merging their businesses in India as it is expected to bring down cost of their operations and give them relief from cut-throat competition in the market where margins have hit rock bottom with free voice calls. The two companies decided to merge their business after the sector witnessed a huge tariff war and reduction in margins with entry of new telecom operator Reliance Jio, and their merger is conditionally approved by the Department of Telecommunications.
Vodafone Idea will have the capacity to provide 4G spectrum in all telecom circles of the country. The combined 4G spectrum of both the companies is capable of offering up to 450 megabit per second broadband speed on mobile phones in 12 telecom areas in the country. Vodafone will own 45.1 per cent stake in the combined entity, while Kumar Mangalam Birla-led Aditya Birla Group will hold 26 per cent and Idea, 28.9 per cent. The Aditya Birla Group has the right to acquire up to 9.5 per cent additional stake from Vodafone under an agreed mechanism with a view to equalising the shareholding over time.
If Vodafone and the Aditya Birla Group’s shareholdings in the combined company are not equal after four years, Vodafone will sell down shares in the combined company to equalise its shareholding to that of the Aditya Birla Group over the following five-year period.
Hearing the petition against Amrapali Group lodged by the flat buyers, the Supreme Court said that the money of flat buyers belongs to them and no one can take it. The Supreme Court conveyed it to the Bank of Baroda that they have lent money to the builder and not to the falt buyers, therefore, they can’t ask people to pay the bank back.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice A.K. Srivastava struck down as unconstitutional Section 5(1) of The Madhya Pradesh Mantri (Vetan Tatha Bhatta) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2017. This provision allowed former Chief Ministers to use Government bungalows throughout their lives without payment of any rent. With the order, former Chief Ministers Kailash Joshi, Digvijay Singh and Uma Bharti are set to lose their government bungalows in the state capital. The Court was hearing a petition filed by one Mr. Raunak Yadav, who had challenged the allotment of bungalows to former Chief Ministers alleging that the same was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea challenging constitutionality of Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. The Section under challenge empowers the Magistrate, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, to pass a residence order directing the ‘respondent’ to remove himself from the shared household. Justice Sunil Thomas, who heard the plea, observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is ‘a self-contained Statute intended to protect the interest of aggrieved women, who are exposed to domestic violence’. The court also observed that the Act is brought in to give effect to the constitutional mandate and also in accordance with international convention adopted by the United Nations and is binding on the member countries.
The Delhi High Court has stayed till 4 July the cutting down of around 20,000 trees for re-development of six south Delhi colonies by the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) and the Central Public Works Department (CPWD). The Bench comprising Justice Vinod Goel and Justice Rekha Palli issued the order on a petition filed by an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Kaushal Kant Mishra, represented through Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan. The Petition seeks setting aside the Terms of Reference (ToR) and the Environment Clearances (EC) granted to the project by the Environment Ministry. Mr. Mishra has alleged that the permissions have been granted “wholly ignoring the air pollution and serious environmental concerns that affect the health of the citizens of the capital”. He relies on the recent report submitted by Niti Ayog, which had claimed that India is facing an emergent water crisis, and asserts that the project would “force the city and its residents into an abyss”.