A+
Control-oriented regimes tend to adhere to strikingly similar playbooks. Xi Jinping, for instance, has said that “East, west, south, north and the centre, the party rules over all”. That echoes Mussolini’s sharper formulation: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” India is not where those regimes are or were, being “partly free”, as a US-based NGO (non-government organisation) describes it. But the Narendra Modi government’s desire for steadily greater control of so far autonomous centres of influence and activity makes clear the direction in which the country is headed.
The rules released last week for what is called social media are only the latest manifestation of this desire. The global tech companies that own, control, and regulate (in a manner of speaking) social media platforms now face pressure to cede ground to the government, with implications for individual privacy. Subsequent revelations about the preparatory
The Delhi High Court has pulled up a petitioner for writing Tom, Dick and Harry in his application against the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
Satish Kumar Gupta and Others
(Essar Steel case) held
that allowing claims apart from those covered in a resolution plan
to survive after the approval of a resolution plan militates
against the rationale of Section 31 of the IBC. The Supreme Court
held that the successful resolution applicant should be given an
opportunity to take over and run the business of the corporate
debtor on a clean slate. Accordingly, a resolution applicant should
not be suddenly faced with undecided claims which would
throw into uncertainty the amounts payable by a resolution
applicant to take over the business of the corporate debtor.