sadalawpublications.com

Status Quo

Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands

Trending Today Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 Byju’s withdraws its Supreme Court appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on Aakash’s ownership. Read the latest updates on the Think and Learn vs. Aakash case. Overview of the Byju’s vs. Aakash Ownership Dispute In a significant development, Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (operating the ed-tech giant Byju’s) has withdrawn its appeal in the Supreme Court of India. The appeal challenged the Karnataka High Court‘s ruling on the ownership of Aakash Educational Services, a subsidiary of Byju’s. This legal battle emerged after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) issued an order to maintain the status quo on Aakash’s shareholding. Aakash contested this decision, resulting in the High Court overturning the NCLT’s directive. Supreme Court Proceedings The Supreme Court reviewed Byju’s appeal on May 2, 2025. Despite expressing concerns over the High Court’s jurisdiction in the matter, the apex court refrained from overturning the High Court’s decision. Key Observations by the Bench A two-judge bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice P.S. Narasimha highlighted: “There was no justification for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when the NCLT’s ruling could have been appealed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).” However, the bench allowed Byju’s to withdraw its appeal, noting the sequence of events that followed. Senior Counsel P.S. Patwalia, representing Think and Learn Pvt Ltd, formally requested the withdrawal, which the court permitted. Timeline of Events March 27, 2025: The NCLT Bengaluru ordered Aakash Educational Services to maintain its current shareholding structure. April 8, 2025: The Karnataka High Court overturned the NCLT’s directive, ruling in favor of Aakash and remanding the case for reconsideration. April 30, 2025: The High Court’s interim ruling required Aakash to uphold its current shareholding until this date, pending further action by the NCLT. Implications for Byju’s and Aakash The withdrawal of Byju’s Supreme Court petition marks a pivotal moment in the ownership dispute with Aakash Educational Services. While Aakash has successfully defended its position, the matter now returns to the NCLT for further deliberation. This case underscores the complexities of corporate governance and the judicial process, particularly in disputes involving high-value mergers and acquisitions. Conclusion The resolution of the Byju’s vs. Aakash ownership case highlights the importance of due process in corporate disputes. Byju’s decision to withdraw its Supreme Court appeal reflects a strategic move to focus on NCLT proceedings rather than prolonged litigation. As the case progresses, it will serve as a crucial example of how businesses navigate India’s evolving legal and regulatory framework. Stay updated as this landmark case unfolds further, shaping the future of corporate governance in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Read More »

Supreme Court maintains a status quo on worship, allowing both Hindus and Muslims to continue their practices….

Trending Today Woman loses Rs 20 crore in Aadhaar digital arrest scam Supreme Court maintains a status quo on worship, allowing both Hindus and Muslims to continue their practices…. Supreme Court slams YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia for ‘obscene’ remarks, grants interim protection ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 The Role of Intellectual Property in Promoting Innovation in India Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Supreme Court Overrules Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Supreme Court maintains a status quo on worship, allowing both Hindus and Muslims to continue their practices…. NITU KUMARI 18 Mar 2025 Case : Laxmi Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Update: March 2024 The Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi city is at the centre of a dispute in court. While Muslims performed namaaz in the mosque and the surrounding courtyard, the Supreme Court of India struck a balance by permitting a selected Hindu priest to continue worshipping inside the Gyanvapi grounds’ cellar, or tehkhana. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud‘s three-judge panel determined that maintaining the status quo was “appropriate” in order to “allow both communities to offer religious worship.” In this manner, namaaz is offered on the mosque’s grounds. They protect the tehkhana. Chief Justice Chandrachud said verbally that the agreement would be upheld until the trial. The court mandated that neither of the disputing parties would alter the status quo. The Hindu plaintiffs, who are led by veteran attorney Shyam Divan, assert that since Satyug, the whole space of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi has been a temple dedicated to Swayambhu Lord Shiva, referred to here as Adi Vishweshwar. They claimed that the Farman of Emperor Aurangzeb in the year 1669 destroyed the temple, which had previously been located on the Gyanvapi property. The complaint that the Hindus filed in a Varanasi court, according to senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi for the management of Anjuman Intazamia Masjid, was only a ploy to invade the mosque’s property. Following the suit by the Hindus, who first sought a judicial declaration of their right to worship within the mosque premises, and then the “discovery” of a Shivling, the mosque managers have been engaged in a protracted legal battle. However, the Muslim side asserted that the building was a fountain. The courts had permitted a “scientific survey” and carbon dating of the building. The most recent events include two consecutive rulings by the Varanasi court permitting Hindu religious ceremonies to take place in the mosque’s cellar, which is accessible from the south side of the building. The Bench discovered that while Muslims may enter the mosque for namaaz from the northern side, the cellar could only be accessed from the southern side. Following the directives of January 17 and January 31, Muslims are currently offering namaaz without any restrictions. The Hindu priest’s puja offering is limited to the cellar area. The court clarified that it would be appropriate to preserve the status quo in order to allow both populations to practice their respective religions. The court emphasized that Hindus’ religious worship must be conducted in strict accordance with the guidelines in the January 31, 2024 decision and be under the Receiver’s safe custody as stipulated in the January 17, 2024 order. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case laws ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 13, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 7, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 6, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 4 Next »

Supreme Court maintains a status quo on worship, allowing both Hindus and Muslims to continue their practices…. Read More »