The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order granting bail to Congress leader DK Shivakumar in alleged connection with a money-laundering case being probed by the agency.

On October 23, the Delhi High Court had granted bail to Shivakumar while taking into note that he had been extensively interrogated by the probe agency since his arrest on September 3.

It had said that there was no material on record to show that he was a flight risk and there was no chance of tampering of evidence as all files are already under the custody of the agency.

Shivakumar had approached the High Court challenging the trial court`s order denying him bail.

He was arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

While granting him the bail, the High Court had asked him not to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, leave the country without prior permission to the court and make himself available for investigation when required.

The alleged money laundering case was registered against him by the ED in September last year, based on a complaint filed the Income Tax Department, alleging tax evasion and hawala transactions amounting to crores.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order granting bail to Congress leader DK Shivakumar in alleged connection with a money-laundering case being probed by the agency.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order granting bail to Congress leader DK Shivakumar in alleged connection with a money-laundering case being probed by the agency. On October 23, the Delhi High Court had granted bail to Shivakumar while taking into note that he had been extensively interrogated by the probe agency since his arrest on September 3. It had said that there was no material on record to show that he was a flight risk and there was no chance of tampering of evidence as all files are already under the custody of the agency. Shivakumar had approached the High Court challenging the trial court`s order denying him bail. He was arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). While granting him the bail, the High Court had asked him not to influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, leave the country without prior permission to the court and make himself available for investigation when required. The alleged money laundering case was registered against him by the ED in September last year, based on a complaint filed the Income Tax Department, alleging tax evasion and hawala transactions amounting to crores.

Enforcement Directorate moves Supreme Court against Delhi High Court order granting bail to Shivakumar

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Congress leader P Chidambaram`s bail application in connection with the INX media money laundering case.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait directed the agency to file a reply in seven days and fixed November 4 as the next date of hearing in the matter.

Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Chidambaram, argued that there is no evidence of tampering, influencing witness and flight risk.

"This was the observation by the top court. When 60 days in CBI were getting over and there was a chance of my bail they (ED) wanted to arrest me. Today seven-day police custody is getting over today. I would like to press for bail after the 15-day custody period is over. The ED has interrogated him only on four occasions," Singhvi said.

Chidambaram on Wednesday moved a bail petition in the INX media case and asserted that all the other accused in the matter have been granted bail.

The ED which is probing the money laundering charges against the leader had arrested him on October 16, following which he was remanded in custody by a special court till October 24, which is also getting expired today.

"All other accused have been enlarged on bail. The petitioner has deep roots in the society and has been in the public life for 40 years," the bail plea said, alleging that the arrest was malafide and done with an intention to harm his reputation.

Chidambaram said he does not have the propensity to evade the law.

"The petitioner has throughout been available during the period of the investigation. Investigation agency did not recover or elicit any incriminating from the possession of Chidambaram during the searches," the plea stated.

The Supreme Court recently granted him bail in the money laundering case which is being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Chidambaram was arrested on August 21 by the CBI in connection with the graft case after which the court initially remanded him to custody and later sent to Tihar Jail.

The agency has recently charge-sheeted him and others, including his son Karti and a handful of bureaucrats, for causing loss to the exchequer by allegedly committing offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007, during Chidambaram`s tenure as finance minister.

Thereafter, the ED lodged a money laundering case in this regard in 2017.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Congress leader P Chidambaram`s bail application in connection with the INX media money laundering case.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Congress leader P Chidambaram`s bail application in connection with the INX media money laundering case. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait directed the agency to file a reply in seven days and fixed November 4 as the next date of hearing in the matter. Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Chidambaram, argued that there is no evidence of tampering, influencing witness and flight risk. "This was the observation by the top court. When 60 days in CBI were getting over and there was a chance of my bail they (ED) wanted to arrest me. Today seven-day police custody is getting over today. I would like to press for bail after the 15-day custody period is over. The ED has interrogated him only on four occasions," Singhvi said. Chidambaram on Wednesday moved a bail petition in the INX media case and asserted that all the other accused in the matter have been granted bail. The ED which is probing the money laundering charges against the leader had arrested him on October 16, following which he was remanded in custody by a special court till October 24, which is also getting expired today. "All other accused have been enlarged on bail. The petitioner has deep roots in the society and has been in the public life for 40 years," the bail plea said, alleging that the arrest was malafide and done with an intention to harm his reputation. Chidambaram said he does not have the propensity to evade the law. "The petitioner has throughout been available during the period of the investigation. Investigation agency did not recover or elicit any incriminating from the possession of Chidambaram during the searches," the plea stated. The Supreme Court recently granted him bail in the money laundering case which is being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Chidambaram was arrested on August 21 by the CBI in connection with the graft case after which the court initially remanded him to custody and later sent to Tihar Jail. The agency has recently charge-sheeted him and others, including his son Karti and a handful of bureaucrats, for causing loss to the exchequer by allegedly committing offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007, during Chidambaram`s tenure as finance minister. Thereafter, the ED lodged a money laundering case in this regard in 2017.

INX media case: Delhi High Court issues notice to ED on Chidambaram's bail plea

Former Union finance minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday moved the Delhi High Court seeking bail in the INX Media money laundering case.

Chidambaram, in bail plea, stated that his<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-enforcement-directorate-arrests-p-chidambaram-after-questioning-him-at-tihar-jail-256212"> arrest by the ED</a> is "malafide and was done with the intention to harm the reputation".

The Enforcement Directorate which is probing the money laundering charges against the leader had arrested him on October 16, following which he was sent remanded to its custody by a special court till October 24.

The petition will be taken up for hearing by the court tomorrow.

The Supreme Court had yesterday granted him bail in the corruption matter being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the case.

Chidambaram was arrested on August 21 by the CBI in connection with the graft case after which the court initially remanded him to its custody and later sent to Tihar jail.

The agency has recently charge-sheeted him and others, including his son Karti and a handful of bureaucrats, for causing loss to the exchequer by allegedly committing offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007, during Chidambaram's tenure as the finance minister.

Thereafter, the ED lodged a money laundering case in this regard in 2017.

Former Union finance minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday moved the Delhi High Court seeking bail in the INX Media money laundering case. Chidambaram, in bail plea, stated that his arrest by the ED is "malafide and was done with the intention to harm the reputation".

Former Union finance minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday moved the Delhi High Court seeking bail in the INX Media money laundering case. Chidambaram, in bail plea, stated that his arrest by the ED is "malafide and was done with the intention to harm the reputation". The Enforcement Directorate which is probing the money laundering charges against the leader had arrested him on October 16, following which he was sent remanded to its custody by a special court till October 24. The petition will be taken up for hearing by the court tomorrow. The Supreme Court had yesterday granted him bail in the corruption matter being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the case. Chidambaram was arrested on August 21 by the CBI in connection with the graft case after which the court initially remanded him to its custody and later sent to Tihar jail. The agency has recently charge-sheeted him and others, including his son Karti and a handful of bureaucrats, for causing loss to the exchequer by allegedly committing offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007, during Chidambaram's tenure as the finance minister. Thereafter, the ED lodged a money laundering case in this regard in 2017.

P Chidambaram seeks bail in INX Media money laundering case

Ranbaxy's former promoter Malvinder Singh has approached Delhi High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered by Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police, saying it lacks jurisdiction to register FIR.

Malvinder Singh said the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is already conducting investigations.

He claims he can only be tried under companies law by SFIO. Justice Brijesh Sethi is currently hearing the case.

Appearing for Singh, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, "The plea raises the question of lack of jurisdiction. The writ was filed some days ago. It raises the issue of jurisdiction. It's not related to something that happened last night."

Singhvi stated that Section 212 of the Companies Act "clearly bars the investigation under Companies Act by any other agency other than SFIO."

"The Centre has assigned the case to SFIO for investigation. In case SFIO has been investigating any offence under the Companies Act, all other authority/agencies having any information shall provide such information to SFIO," he stated.

EOW's case against the applicant is under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. SFIO, which investigates cases of serious frauds, is also empowered to investigate charges under CrPC while investigating cases of serious financial frauds, he said and added that parallel investigation by EOW would violate protection from duplication as enshrined under Article 20 of Constitution.

EOW stated that Singh was arrested yesterday. This matter is not appropriate to be taken up at this time and may be adjourned for few weeks, it added.

Singhvi said that in the FIR lodged by EOW, it has acknowledged the investigation being conducted by SFIO.

"How can two proceedings go simultaneously? Both the complaints refer to the same company, same transactions. For species of offences that partake with fraud, SFIO is made the only agency. How can the EOW then continue with the investigation? If SFIO investigating, EOW can't jump the gun," he said.

Singhvi has sought notice to be issued to EOW or grant of stay on the proceedings initiated by EOW.

Appearing for EOW, advocate Avi Singh said, "EOW is investigating companies which are different from the ones notified by the Centre to be investigated by SFIO.

EOW is investigating different companies, promoters are same. SFIO has been given specific allegations and companies to investigate.

"EOW's investigation is also being done under a different Act. EOW is not investigating any offences under Companies Act but offences under IPC, EOW stated.SFIO cannot investigate offences under IPC. Fraud by a company is an offence separate from criminal conspiracy and other offences under IPC," it added.

EOW further mentioned that they are at the stage of initial and crucial investigation.

Supreme Court has held that an accused can't choose its investigating agency, it stated.

Our Investigation is relying on RBI forensic report that Rs 1260 crore has been diverted from Religare, it added.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Ranbaxy's former promoter Malvinder Singh has approached Delhi High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered by Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police, saying it lacks jurisdiction to register FIR.

Ranbaxy's former promoter Malvinder Singh has approached Delhi High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered by Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police, saying it lacks jurisdiction to register FIR. Malvinder Singh said the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is already conducting investigations. He claims he can only be tried under companies law by SFIO. Justice Brijesh Sethi is currently hearing the case. Appearing for Singh, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, "The plea raises the question of lack of jurisdiction. The writ was filed some days ago. It raises the issue of jurisdiction. It's not related to something that happened last night." Singhvi stated that Section 212 of the Companies Act "clearly bars the investigation under Companies Act by any other agency other than SFIO." "The Centre has assigned the case to SFIO for investigation. In case SFIO has been investigating any offence under the Companies Act, all other authority/agencies having any information shall provide such information to SFIO," he stated. EOW's case against the applicant is under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. SFIO, which investigates cases of serious frauds, is also empowered to investigate charges under CrPC while investigating cases of serious financial frauds, he said and added that parallel investigation by EOW would violate protection from duplication as enshrined under Article 20 of Constitution. EOW stated that Singh was arrested yesterday. This matter is not appropriate to be taken up at this time and may be adjourned for few weeks, it added. Singhvi said that in the FIR lodged by EOW, it has acknowledged the investigation being conducted by SFIO. "How can two proceedings go simultaneously? Both the complaints refer to the same company, same transactions. For species of offences that partake with fraud, SFIO is made the only agency. How can the EOW then continue with the investigation? If SFIO investigating, EOW can't jump the gun," he said. Singhvi has sought notice to be issued to EOW or grant of stay on the proceedings initiated by EOW. Appearing for EOW, advocate Avi Singh said, "EOW is investigating companies which are different from the ones notified by the Centre to be investigated by SFIO. EOW is investigating different companies, promoters are same. SFIO has been given specific allegations and companies to investigate. "EOW's investigation is also being done under a different Act. EOW is not investigating any offences under Companies Act but offences under IPC, EOW stated.SFIO cannot investigate offences under IPC. Fraud by a company is an offence separate from criminal conspiracy and other offences under IPC," it added. EOW further mentioned that they are at the stage of initial and crucial investigation. Supreme Court has held that an accused can't choose its investigating agency, it stated. Our Investigation is relying on RBI forensic report that Rs 1260 crore has been diverted from Religare, it added.

Malvinder Singh approaches Delhi High Court, seeks quashing of FIR

The Delhi High Court slated the hearing on a fresh application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking more time to probe charges against its officials Rakesh Asthana, Devender Kumar for October 9.

The CBI had on September 30 moved the court seeking time to complete the investigation into the corruption charges levelled against the duo.

The agency moved the court on the expiry of the four months extension granted to it to investigate the case.

According to the application, it sought the extension as there is an issue relating to the investigation in the foreign countries.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru will hear the matter on the next date of the hearing.

The agency has also submitted to the court a status report in a sealed cover containing all the development made in the investigation so far.

Prior to this, the CBI had filed a status report in March earlier this year mentioning the progress made in the investigation and sought further time from the court which was subsequently allowed.

Asthana and Devendra Kumar are being probed by the CBI for allegedly accepting the bribe in exchange for a clean chit to Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana.Asthana had also accused former CBI Director Alok Verma of trying to falsely implicate him in the case, following which the Centre sent both on leave last year.

Last week, CBI officer Satish Dagar, who was investigating the corruption case against Asthana, applied for voluntary retirement.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court slated the hearing on a fresh application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking more time to probe charges against its officials Rakesh Asthana, Devender Kumar for October 9.

The Delhi High Court slated the hearing on a fresh application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking more time to probe charges against its officials Rakesh Asthana, Devender Kumar for October 9. The CBI had on September 30 moved the court seeking time to complete the investigation into the corruption charges levelled against the duo. The agency moved the court on the expiry of the four months extension granted to it to investigate the case. According to the application, it sought the extension as there is an issue relating to the investigation in the foreign countries. Justice Vibhu Bakhru will hear the matter on the next date of the hearing. The agency has also submitted to the court a status report in a sealed cover containing all the development made in the investigation so far. Prior to this, the CBI had filed a status report in March earlier this year mentioning the progress made in the investigation and sought further time from the court which was subsequently allowed. Asthana and Devendra Kumar are being probed by the CBI for allegedly accepting the bribe in exchange for a clean chit to Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana.Asthana had also accused former CBI Director Alok Verma of trying to falsely implicate him in the case, following which the Centre sent both on leave last year. Last week, CBI officer Satish Dagar, who was investigating the corruption case against Asthana, applied for voluntary retirement.

Delhi High Court to hear CBI's plea seeking more time to probe Rakesh Asthana on October 9

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday opposed former Finance Minister P Chidambaram's bail plea filed in the Delhi High Court in the INX Media case, on the grounds of "gravity of the offence and the magnitude of the financial embezzlement".

In a reply filed on the Chidambaram'&nbsp;petition, the CBI said that granting bail in "such cases will set a wrong precedent" in the corruption cases.

The agency submitted that the former minister received payments in India and overseas "in connection with FIPB approval and amicably settling down the issues relating to a violation of FEMA".

"That investigation conducted so far has revealed that the accused/ petitioner, while working as the Finance Minister, demanded illegal gratification against which payments were made in India as well as overseas to the Petitioner/accused and his son Karti Chidambaram by other co-accused Indrani Mukerjee and Pratim Mukerjea from various bank accounts maintained in the country as well as abroad in connection with FIPB approval and amicably resolving/settling down the issues relating to violation of FEMA by their company INX Media Pvt Ltd/INX News Pvt. Ltd," said agency in the reply.

Asserting that "sufficient evidence" is available against Chidamabaram, the agency said, "It is further submitted that the statements recorded so far also clearly corroborates the accusation against the accused/petitioner which clearly shows that the accused is the main conspirator of the enure offence, which makes it grave enough to disentitle him from seeking an order of bail from this court."

Hearing on the petition filed by Chidambaram, who is currently lodged Tihar Jail, is scheduled to take place on Monday.

On Thursday, a Delhi court extended his till judicial custody to October 3 in the corruption case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

He was arrested by the CBI on August 21 and was in its custody till September 5.

On August 6, he was sent to judicial custody which was to end on Thursday. Chidambaram, through one of his counsels, sought the court's direction for a regular check-up and adequate supplement diet in the jail, asserting that he is facing various ailments and has lost some weight during his jail-term.

His counsel Kapil Sibal also said that the Congress leader was given even a chair or pillow in his cell.

Chidambaram was the Finance Minister when the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) gave Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) clearance to INX Media in 2007.

He is facing probe by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged irregularities in granting clearance to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore. 
&nbsp;

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday opposed former Finance Minister P Chidambaram's bail plea filed in the Delhi High Court in the INX Media case, on the grounds of "gravity of the offence and the magnitude of the financial embezzlement".

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday opposed former Finance Minister P Chidambaram's bail plea filed in the Delhi High Court in the INX Media case, on the grounds of "gravity of the offence and the magnitude of the financial embezzlement". In a reply filed on the Chidambaram' petition, the CBI said that granting bail in "such cases will set a wrong precedent" in the corruption cases. The agency submitted that the former minister received payments in India and overseas "in connection with FIPB approval and amicably settling down the issues relating to a violation of FEMA". "That investigation conducted so far has revealed that the accused/ petitioner, while working as the Finance Minister, demanded illegal gratification against which payments were made in India as well as overseas to the Petitioner/accused and his son Karti Chidambaram by other co-accused Indrani Mukerjee and Pratim Mukerjea from various bank accounts maintained in the country as well as abroad in connection with FIPB approval and amicably resolving/settling down the issues relating to violation of FEMA by their company INX Media Pvt Ltd/INX News Pvt. Ltd," said agency in the reply. Asserting that "sufficient evidence" is available against Chidamabaram, the agency said, "It is further submitted that the statements recorded so far also clearly corroborates the accusation against the accused/petitioner which clearly shows that the accused is the main conspirator of the enure offence, which makes it grave enough to disentitle him from seeking an order of bail from this court." Hearing on the petition filed by Chidambaram, who is currently lodged Tihar Jail, is scheduled to take place on Monday. On Thursday, a Delhi court extended his till judicial custody to October 3 in the corruption case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He was arrested by the CBI on August 21 and was in its custody till September 5. On August 6, he was sent to judicial custody which was to end on Thursday. Chidambaram, through one of his counsels, sought the court's direction for a regular check-up and adequate supplement diet in the jail, asserting that he is facing various ailments and has lost some weight during his jail-term. His counsel Kapil Sibal also said that the Congress leader was given even a chair or pillow in his cell. Chidambaram was the Finance Minister when the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) gave Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) clearance to INX Media in 2007. He is facing probe by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged irregularities in granting clearance to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore.

INX media case: CBI opposes Chidambaram's bail plea in Delhi HC citing 'gravity of offence'

Delhi High Court on Thursday issued a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on former finance minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram's plea seeking bail and challenging judicial custody order given by a trial court in the INX Media case.

The court asked CBI to file a status report in the bail plea within 7 days and slated the matter for hearing on September 23.

Chidambaram's lawyers have also withdrawn their second plea challenging his judicial custody.

The Congress leader was arrested by CBI in the INX Media case on Aug 21 and sent to CBI custody for interrogation.

Last week, a CBI court sent Chidambaram to judicial custody in Tihar Jail till September 19.

Chidambaram is facing probe in cases registered by the CBI and the ED pertaining to alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when he was the Union Finance Minister.&nbsp;

Delhi High Court on Thursday issued a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on former finance minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram's plea seeking bail and challenging judicial custody order given by a trial court in the INX Media case.

Delhi High Court on Thursday issued a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on former finance minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram's plea seeking bail and challenging judicial custody order given by a trial court in the INX Media case. The court asked CBI to file a status report in the bail plea within 7 days and slated the matter for hearing on September 23. Chidambaram's lawyers have also withdrawn their second plea challenging his judicial custody. The Congress leader was arrested by CBI in the INX Media case on Aug 21 and sent to CBI custody for interrogation. Last week, a CBI court sent Chidambaram to judicial custody in Tihar Jail till September 19. Chidambaram is facing probe in cases registered by the CBI and the ED pertaining to alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when he was the Union Finance Minister.

INX media case: Delhi High Court issues notice to CBI on Chidambaram's bail plea

A petition was moved in the Delhi High Court on Monday seeking directions to the Central government and Law Commission of India to constitute a judicial commission or a high-level expert committee to draft a Uniform Civil Code.

The petition, filed by lawyer Abhinav Beri, submitted that the gender justice and equality, and dignity of women guaranteed under various Articles of the Constitution cannot be secured without the implementation of the Article 44.&nbsp;

"The purpose of Article 44 is to introduce a Uniform Civil Code, which is essential to promote fraternity unity and national integration," the petition submitted.

It asserted that the executive branch did not take serious steps to implement the Uniform Civil Code.

The court tagged this petition with a similar petition, which had sought framing of a Uniform Civil Code to promote fraternity, unity and national integration.

The petition, filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, is listed for hearing tomorrow.&nbsp;

All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had on Friday moved an application in the high court seeking to be impleaded as a party in a petition moved by the BJP leader.&nbsp;

It submitted that the petition is not maintainable under the law and sought its dismissal.

A petition was moved in the Delhi High Court on Monday seeking directions to the Central government and Law Commission of India to constitute a judicial commission or a high-level expert committee to draft a Uniform Civil Code.

A petition was moved in the Delhi High Court on Monday seeking directions to the Central government and Law Commission of India to constitute a judicial commission or a high-level expert committee to draft a Uniform Civil Code. The petition, filed by lawyer Abhinav Beri, submitted that the gender justice and equality, and dignity of women guaranteed under various Articles of the Constitution cannot be secured without the implementation of the Article 44. "The purpose of Article 44 is to introduce a Uniform Civil Code, which is essential to promote fraternity unity and national integration," the petition submitted. It asserted that the executive branch did not take serious steps to implement the Uniform Civil Code. The court tagged this petition with a similar petition, which had sought framing of a Uniform Civil Code to promote fraternity, unity and national integration. The petition, filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, is listed for hearing tomorrow. All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had on Friday moved an application in the high court seeking to be impleaded as a party in a petition moved by the BJP leader. It submitted that the petition is not maintainable under the law and sought its dismissal.

Petition moved in Delhi High Court seeking to draft Uniform Civil Code

In more trouble for senior Congress leader P Chidambaram who could be arrested, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/inx-media-case-cbi-team-arrives-at-p-chidambarams-residence-244460">Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea</a> of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram observing that he is the "key conspirator" in the INX Media case.

Shortly after the order delivered by Justice Sunil Gaur, a six-member team of CBI officials went to the Jor Bagh residence of the former Union Minister, apparently to arrest him, but returned as he was said to be not there.

A last-ditch attempt to get a stay of the order was made by Chidambaram's lawyer Dayan Krishnan who sought a stay for three days so that they could appeal against it.

The judge said he would consider but later rejected it. Top lawyers Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi rushed to the Supreme Court and appeared before the court of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi who told them to move the senior-most judge on Wednesday morning.

"Facts of the case prima facie reveal that the petitioner (P Chidambaram) is the kingpin i.e. the key conspirator in this case," the Justice Sunil Gaur stated in the order.

He said that the gravity of the offence and evasive replies to the questions prompted the court to deny the pre-arrest bail to the former union finance minister.

The court said that it is preposterous to say prosecution of Chidambaram is baseless, politically motivated and an act of vendetta.

"Simply because Chidambaram is a Member of Parliament, would not justify the grant of pre-arrest bail to him," the order stated.

"This grant of bail in cases like instant one will send a wrong message to the society, stated the order.

"It cannot be forgotten that the petitioner was the Finance Minister at the relevant time and had given FDI clearances to INX Media group for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 Crore," it read.

Taking note of "huge magnitude of conspiracy angle", the judge observed that it would be premature to jump to a conclusion that provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) would not imply.

The court said that the law enforcement agencies cannot be made "ineffective" by putting legal obstacles of offences in question.

"It was pertinently observed that the economic crimes of such mammoth scale are craftily planned and executed," the order said.

The Congress leader will, however, approach the Supreme Court tomorrow seeking a stay of the order and also to challenge it.

In 2007, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered an FIR alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Chidambaram was the Union Finance Minister.

Based on the FIR, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had filed a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case against him.

Chidambaram has denied the charges and said the case against him was political motivated.

Chidambaram's son Karti has also been named in the two cases. He was arrested on February 28, 2018, by the CBI and was later released on bail.

The ED had attached properties belonging to him. On July 4, a Delhi court had allowed Indrani Mukerjea, the former head of the INX Media, to turn an approver in the CBI case.

The agency had submitted that it has come across evidence in the form of conversations which only Indrani Mukerjea is privy to and will help consolidate the case.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

In more trouble for senior Congress leader P Chidambaram who could be arrested, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram observing that he is the "key conspirator" in the INX Media case.

In more trouble for senior Congress leader P Chidambaram who could be arrested, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram observing that he is the "key conspirator" in the INX Media case. Shortly after the order delivered by Justice Sunil Gaur, a six-member team of CBI officials went to the Jor Bagh residence of the former Union Minister, apparently to arrest him, but returned as he was said to be not there. A last-ditch attempt to get a stay of the order was made by Chidambaram's lawyer Dayan Krishnan who sought a stay for three days so that they could appeal against it. The judge said he would consider but later rejected it. Top lawyers Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi rushed to the Supreme Court and appeared before the court of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi who told them to move the senior-most judge on Wednesday morning. "Facts of the case prima facie reveal that the petitioner (P Chidambaram) is the kingpin i.e. the key conspirator in this case," the Justice Sunil Gaur stated in the order. He said that the gravity of the offence and evasive replies to the questions prompted the court to deny the pre-arrest bail to the former union finance minister. The court said that it is preposterous to say prosecution of Chidambaram is baseless, politically motivated and an act of vendetta. "Simply because Chidambaram is a Member of Parliament, would not justify the grant of pre-arrest bail to him," the order stated. "This grant of bail in cases like instant one will send a wrong message to the society, stated the order. "It cannot be forgotten that the petitioner was the Finance Minister at the relevant time and had given FDI clearances to INX Media group for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 Crore," it read. Taking note of "huge magnitude of conspiracy angle", the judge observed that it would be premature to jump to a conclusion that provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) would not imply. The court said that the law enforcement agencies cannot be made "ineffective" by putting legal obstacles of offences in question. "It was pertinently observed that the economic crimes of such mammoth scale are craftily planned and executed," the order said. The Congress leader will, however, approach the Supreme Court tomorrow seeking a stay of the order and also to challenge it. In 2007, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered an FIR alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007 when Chidambaram was the Union Finance Minister. Based on the FIR, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had filed a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case against him. Chidambaram has denied the charges and said the case against him was political motivated. Chidambaram's son Karti has also been named in the two cases. He was arrested on February 28, 2018, by the CBI and was later released on bail. The ED had attached properties belonging to him. On July 4, a Delhi court had allowed Indrani Mukerjea, the former head of the INX Media, to turn an approver in the CBI case. The agency had submitted that it has come across evidence in the form of conversations which only Indrani Mukerjea is privy to and will help consolidate the case.

P Chidambaram key conspirator in INX Media case: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed both <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/enforcement-directorate-ed-summons-p-chidambaram-in-connection-with-purchase-of-111-aircraft-during-upas-tenure-244150">anticipatory bail pleas of former Finance Minister P Chidambaram</a> in connection with INX Media case, news agency ANI reported

Chidambaram has now no protection from arrest. The pleas have been opposed by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED).&nbsp;

Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who is representing P Chidambaram said that they will now move the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

"We will mention the matter before the Supreme Court tomorrow morning," Sibal told reporters.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing P Chidambaram says, "We will mention the matter before the Supreme Court tomorrow morning." <a href="https://t.co/w4FDl3auEG">https://t.co/w4FDl3auEG</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1163775693743955968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Enforcement Directorate had summoned Chidambaram to appear before it for questioning in connection with the purchase of 111 aircraft for Air India during Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's tenure, sources said on Monday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Delhi High Court dismisses both anticipatory bail pleas of Former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram in connection with INX Media case. <a href="https://t.co/Gbt4Py4y8m">pic.twitter.com/Gbt4Py4y8m</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1163746435415908352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

According to the sources, the case pertains to the purchase of 111 aircraft - 48 aircraft from Airbus and 68 from Boeing for Rs 70,000 crore in 2007.

The senior Congress leader will, on August 23, depose before the agency and record his statement in connection to the purchase of 48 aircraft from Airbus.

On May 15, 2017, the CBI had registered an FIR in the INX Media case alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the media group for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007. Chidambaram was finance minister in the UPA I government at that time.

The ED had lodged a money laundering case in this regard last year.

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed both anticipatory bail pleas of former Finance Minister P Chidambaram in connection with INX Media case, news agency ANI reported Chidambaram has now no protection from arrest.

Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed both anticipatory bail pleas of former Finance Minister P Chidambaram in connection with INX Media case, news agency ANI reported Chidambaram has now no protection from arrest. The pleas have been opposed by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED). Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who is representing P Chidambaram said that they will now move the Supreme Court. "We will mention the matter before the Supreme Court tomorrow morning," Sibal told reporters. Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing P Chidambaram says, "We will mention the matter before the Supreme Court tomorrow morning." https://t.co/w4FDl3auEG — ANI (@ANI) August 20, 2019 × The Enforcement Directorate had summoned Chidambaram to appear before it for questioning in connection with the purchase of 111 aircraft for Air India during Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's tenure, sources said on Monday. Delhi High Court dismisses both anticipatory bail pleas of Former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram in connection with INX Media case. pic.twitter.com/Gbt4Py4y8m — ANI (@ANI) August 20, 2019 × According to the sources, the case pertains to the purchase of 111 aircraft - 48 aircraft from Airbus and 68 from Boeing for Rs 70,000 crore in 2007. The senior Congress leader will, on August 23, depose before the agency and record his statement in connection to the purchase of 48 aircraft from Airbus. On May 15, 2017, the CBI had registered an FIR in the INX Media case alleging irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the media group for receiving overseas funds to the tune of Rs 305 crore in 2007. Chidambaram was finance minister in the UPA I government at that time. The ED had lodged a money laundering case in this regard last year. (With inputs from ANI)

No protection from arrest for P Chidambaram as Delhi High Court dismisses bail pleas

Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed anticipatory bail pleas of Former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram in connection with INX Media case. Watch this video to know more.

INX Media case: Delhi HC denies anticipatory bail to P Chidambaram

Delhi High Court on Thursday granted time to Robert Vadra to file a rejoinder on the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) reply to the petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The plea filed by Robert Vadra and his close aide Manoj Arora had also sought quashing of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), under which they have been charged.

A division bench of Justices Manmohan and Justice Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal also dismissed as withdrawn, another plea by the petitioners seeking no coercive action against them as both have already been granted anticipatory bail by the trial court.

ED had filed its reply after the court sought its response on the plea.

The court has slated the next hearing in the case to August 21.

Senior advocate KTS Tulsi, who is from Congress, appeared for Vadra and Arora while senior lawyer Amit Mahajan and DP Singh represented the ED.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who had earlier appeared for ED, had questioned the maintainability of the petition challenging the PMLA Sections saying that the matter concerned is already pending before the Supreme Court.

The pleas seeking quashing of the case against them is an abuse of the process of the law, Mehta had told the court.

Vadra is accused of money laundering in the purchase of a London-based property at 12, Bryanston Square allegedly worth 1.9 million pounds. \ 
&nbsp;

Delhi High Court on Thursday granted time to Robert Vadra to file a rejoinder on the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) reply to the petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Delhi High Court on Thursday granted time to Robert Vadra to file a rejoinder on the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) reply to the petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The plea filed by Robert Vadra and his close aide Manoj Arora had also sought quashing of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), under which they have been charged. A division bench of Justices Manmohan and Justice Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal also dismissed as withdrawn, another plea by the petitioners seeking no coercive action against them as both have already been granted anticipatory bail by the trial court. ED had filed its reply after the court sought its response on the plea. The court has slated the next hearing in the case to August 21. Senior advocate KTS Tulsi, who is from Congress, appeared for Vadra and Arora while senior lawyer Amit Mahajan and DP Singh represented the ED. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, who had earlier appeared for ED, had questioned the maintainability of the petition challenging the PMLA Sections saying that the matter concerned is already pending before the Supreme Court. The pleas seeking quashing of the case against them is an abuse of the process of the law, Mehta had told the court. Vadra is accused of money laundering in the purchase of a London-based property at 12, Bryanston Square allegedly worth 1.9 million pounds. \

Delhi High Court grants time to Robert Vadra to file rejoinder in plea challenging PMLA sections

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging the AAP government's proposal of making <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cm-kejriwal-announces-free-travel-for-women-in-delhi-metro-dtc-buses-223816&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjEiuGnpKrjAhX573MBHRXDA4sQFjABegQIDhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw2EC_F6mpgLQmCZO0fbt-np">Delhi metro rides free for women</a>.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel and comprising Justice C Harishankar, while dismissing the petition, said that the petition had no substance and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner Bipin Bihar Singh.

Singh had contended in his plea that the decision of the Delhi government to give free metro rides to women is "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".

The petition had also sought a direction to the state government to reduce the metro fare. It mentioned that the state government should have considered taking steps to reduce fares in the metro.&nbsp;

"It has hit not only the commuters but has also brought a sharp decrease in metro ridership. It is surprising that such a high fare structure is operational in a transport system which is primarily used by common masses," the plea submitted.

Additionally, it sought directions to the state government to adopt a fare table suggested by the Fare Fixation Committee.

Last month, Kejriwal had announced free ride for women in all Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) buses, cluster buses and Delhi Metro trains, in order to provide a safe travel experience to them.

He had said that the proposal will be implemented within two to three months based on the feedback and suggestions from the public.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging the AAP government's proposal of making Delhi metro rides free for women. A division bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel and comprising Justice C Harishankar, while dismissing the petition, said that the petition had no substance and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner Bipin Bihar Singh.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging the AAP government's proposal of making Delhi metro rides free for women. A division bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel and comprising Justice C Harishankar, while dismissing the petition, said that the petition had no substance and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner Bipin Bihar Singh. Singh had contended in his plea that the decision of the Delhi government to give free metro rides to women is "arbitrary" and "discriminatory". The petition had also sought a direction to the state government to reduce the metro fare. It mentioned that the state government should have considered taking steps to reduce fares in the metro. "It has hit not only the commuters but has also brought a sharp decrease in metro ridership. It is surprising that such a high fare structure is operational in a transport system which is primarily used by common masses," the plea submitted. Additionally, it sought directions to the state government to adopt a fare table suggested by the Fare Fixation Committee. Last month, Kejriwal had announced free ride for women in all Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) buses, cluster buses and Delhi Metro trains, in order to provide a safe travel experience to them. He had said that the proposal will be implemented within two to three months based on the feedback and suggestions from the public.

Delhi High Court dismisses plea challenging AAP government's free metro ride for women scheme

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear on Tuesday a petition filed by former Jet Airways chairman Naresh Goyal seeking quashing of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru had recused himself from hearing Goyal's plea when the matter came up on July 5.

The circular was issued against Goyal by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Corporate Affairs Ministry after it found several irregularities in the aviation company, which had halted operations in April this year due to acute cash crunch.

On May 25, Goyal and his wife Anita were denied permission to travel abroad.

The duo was flying out of India from Mumbai on an Emirates flight when they were restricted from leaving the country by the immigration authorities.

On March 25, Goyal, the then Jet Airways chairman, had stepped down from the post. He had set up the airline 25 years ago.

According to the lawyers, the SFIO had also summoned Goyal to join the probe on July 10.

The ministry had earlier asked the SFIO to investigate Jet Airways for alleged syphoning of funds and misappropriation of accounts and file its report within six months.

Goyal has also challenged the several office memoranda issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.

Jet has been suffering bruising competition from low-cost airlines, fluctuating crude prices and a weak rupee.

The airline has over one billion dollars in debt and has to repay money to banks, lessors of planes and suppliers besides clearing pending salaries of pilots and other staff.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear on Tuesday a petition filed by former Jet Airways chairman Naresh Goyal seeking quashing of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him.

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear on Tuesday a petition filed by former Jet Airways chairman Naresh Goyal seeking quashing of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him. Justice Vibhu Bakhru had recused himself from hearing Goyal's plea when the matter came up on July 5. The circular was issued against Goyal by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Corporate Affairs Ministry after it found several irregularities in the aviation company, which had halted operations in April this year due to acute cash crunch. On May 25, Goyal and his wife Anita were denied permission to travel abroad. The duo was flying out of India from Mumbai on an Emirates flight when they were restricted from leaving the country by the immigration authorities. On March 25, Goyal, the then Jet Airways chairman, had stepped down from the post. He had set up the airline 25 years ago. According to the lawyers, the SFIO had also summoned Goyal to join the probe on July 10. The ministry had earlier asked the SFIO to investigate Jet Airways for alleged syphoning of funds and misappropriation of accounts and file its report within six months. Goyal has also challenged the several office memoranda issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. Jet has been suffering bruising competition from low-cost airlines, fluctuating crude prices and a weak rupee. The airline has over one billion dollars in debt and has to repay money to banks, lessors of planes and suppliers besides clearing pending salaries of pilots and other staff.

Jet Airways row: Delhi High Court to hear tomorrow Naresh Goyal's plea seeking quashing of Look Out Circular

The Supreme Court on Monday asked petitioner and lawyer, Anuja Kapur, to approach the Delhi High Court for redressal of her plea seeking a direction to the Union of India for framing the necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws to consider marital rape as a ground of divorce.

A two-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Justice SA Bobde, and also comprising Justice B R Gavai, asked Kapur to approach the Delhi High court for seeking relief in the case.

The petition was filed before the Supreme Court by Kapur, seeking a direction to the Central government to ensure that there should be a clear guideline for registration of the cases related to marital rape.

The petition sought a direction to frame necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws and by-laws related to considering marital rape as a ground of divorce.

The petition also sought that there should be a proper guideline for registration of the cases related to marital rape, so that accountability, responsibility, and liability of the concerned authorities could be assigned while awarding penalties to the accused.

To maintain the dignity of women in marriage, the petition of Anuja, pleaded to the Supreme Court that it should pass suitable directions to the respondent (UOI) keeping in mind the welfare, well-being and interest of the public.

Anuja's 47-page petition, a copy of which is available with the ANI, further claimed that there is no law for stopping the marital rape.

The petition said that the top court should hear the petition on an urgent basis and pass a direction which is the need of the hour in order to put a stop to such cases.

The petition further claimed that marital rape is not a crime and that there is no FIR (First Information Report) registered by a wife against her husband in any police station, rather, cases are being compromised by the police authorities to maintain the sanctity of the marriage between the victims and their husbands.

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Monday asked petitioner and lawyer, Anuja Kapur, to approach the Delhi High Court for redressal of her plea seeking a direction to the Union of India for framing the necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws to consider marital rape as a ground of divorce.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked petitioner and lawyer, Anuja Kapur, to approach the Delhi High Court for redressal of her plea seeking a direction to the Union of India for framing the necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws to consider marital rape as a ground of divorce. A two-judge bench of the Apex Court, headed by Justice SA Bobde, and also comprising Justice B R Gavai, asked Kapur to approach the Delhi High court for seeking relief in the case. The petition was filed before the Supreme Court by Kapur, seeking a direction to the Central government to ensure that there should be a clear guideline for registration of the cases related to marital rape. The petition sought a direction to frame necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws and by-laws related to considering marital rape as a ground of divorce. The petition also sought that there should be a proper guideline for registration of the cases related to marital rape, so that accountability, responsibility, and liability of the concerned authorities could be assigned while awarding penalties to the accused. To maintain the dignity of women in marriage, the petition of Anuja, pleaded to the Supreme Court that it should pass suitable directions to the respondent (UOI) keeping in mind the welfare, well-being and interest of the public. Anuja's 47-page petition, a copy of which is available with the ANI, further claimed that there is no law for stopping the marital rape. The petition said that the top court should hear the petition on an urgent basis and pass a direction which is the need of the hour in order to put a stop to such cases. The petition further claimed that marital rape is not a crime and that there is no FIR (First Information Report) registered by a wife against her husband in any police station, rather, cases are being compromised by the police authorities to maintain the sanctity of the marriage between the victims and their husbands.

Marital rape as ground for divorce: Supreme Court asks petitioner to approach Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL against Salman Khan's new film 'Bharat' which sought a stay over the film's release.&nbsp;

According to the petitioner, Vikas Tyagi, the movie is "distorting the culture and political image of our great country `Bharat`."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bharat-pil-filed-seeking-change-in-films-title-as-it-distorts-political-image-of-country-223002">In his plea, Tyagi </a>had contended that the title of the film is in violation of Section 3 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, according to which the word `Bharat` cannot be used for the commercial purpose.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court dismisses the PIL seeking stay on the release of upcoming movie 'Bharat.' Petition stated that title of film is in violation of Section-3 Emblems &amp; names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, according to which word 'Bharat' can't be used for commercial purpose. <a href="https://t.co/sEB8bAGuAb">pic.twitter.com/sEB8bAGuAb</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1135528415430402048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The film, directed by Ali Abbas Zafar, is a remake of Korean film 'Ode To My Father' and has Salman Khan playing the titular role. The film narrates the journey of a man and a country together.&nbsp;

The film also features Katrina Kaif, Disha Patani, Sunil Grover and Tabu. It is scheduled to release on 5th June.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL against Salman Khan's new film 'Bharat' which sought a stay over the film's release. According to the petitioner, Vikas Tyagi, the movie is "distorting the culture and political image of our great country `Bharat`.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL against Salman Khan's new film 'Bharat' which sought a stay over the film's release. According to the petitioner, Vikas Tyagi, the movie is "distorting the culture and political image of our great country `Bharat`." In his plea, Tyagi had contended that the title of the film is in violation of Section 3 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, according to which the word `Bharat` cannot be used for the commercial purpose. Delhi High Court dismisses the PIL seeking stay on the release of upcoming movie 'Bharat.' Petition stated that title of film is in violation of Section-3 Emblems & names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, according to which word 'Bharat' can't be used for commercial purpose. pic.twitter.com/sEB8bAGuAb — ANI (@ANI) June 3, 2019 × The film, directed by Ali Abbas Zafar, is a remake of Korean film 'Ode To My Father' and has Salman Khan playing the titular role. The film narrates the journey of a man and a country together. The film also features Katrina Kaif, Disha Patani, Sunil Grover and Tabu. It is scheduled to release on 5th June.

Bharat: Delhi High Court dismisses PIL against Salman Khan's film

A Public Interest Litigation was filed in Delhi High Court on Thursday seeking a change of the title of Bollywood superstar <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/bharat-from-salman-khan-to-tabu-whos-playing-what-in-ali-abbas-zafars-film-222224">Salman Khan's upcoming movie 'Bharat'.</a>

According to the petitioner, Vikas Tyagi, the movie is "distorting the culture and political image of our great country 'Bharat'."

In his plea, Tyagi had contended that the title of the film is in violation of Section 3 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, according to which the word 'Bharat'&nbsp;cannot be used for the commercial purpose.

He has also sought change in one of the dialogues of the film where the character has been compared to the country, contending that it hurts the patriotic sentiments of the people of the country.

"This film is fraught with Salman's typical flippancy and vulgarity. Being a 'Bharatiya', I feel it is not appropriate to name such film or any character associated with this film after our great nation," Tyagi said.

The movie, which also stars Katrina Kaif, is slated for a release on June 5.&nbsp; 
 
 
&nbsp;

A Public Interest Litigation was filed in Delhi High Court on Thursday seeking a change of the title of Bollywood superstar Salman Khan's upcoming movie 'Bharat'.

A Public Interest Litigation was filed in Delhi High Court on Thursday seeking a change of the title of Bollywood superstar Salman Khan's upcoming movie 'Bharat'. According to the petitioner, Vikas Tyagi, the movie is "distorting the culture and political image of our great country 'Bharat'." In his plea, Tyagi had contended that the title of the film is in violation of Section 3 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, according to which the word 'Bharat' cannot be used for the commercial purpose. He has also sought change in one of the dialogues of the film where the character has been compared to the country, contending that it hurts the patriotic sentiments of the people of the country. "This film is fraught with Salman's typical flippancy and vulgarity. Being a 'Bharatiya', I feel it is not appropriate to name such film or any character associated with this film after our great nation," Tyagi said. The movie, which also stars Katrina Kaif, is slated for a release on June 5.

Public Interest Litigation in Delhi High Court seeks title change of Salman Khan starrer 'Bharat'

Five days ahead of the release of Salman Khan's 'Bharat', the film is facing problems because of its title. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in Delhi High Court on Thursday seeking a change of the title. 
 
According to the petitioner, Vikas Tyagi, the movie is "distorting the culture and political image of our great country `Bharat`." 
 
In his plea, Tyagi had contended that the title of the film is in violation of Section 3 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, according to which the word `Bharat` cannot be used for the commercial purpose.He has also sought change in one of the dialogues of the film where the character has been compared to the country, contending that it hurts the patriotic sentiments of the people of the country. 
 
"This film is fraught with Salman`s typical flippancy and vulgarity. Being a `Bharatiya`, I feel it is not appropriate to name such film or any character associated with this film after our great nation," Tyagi said. 
 
The movie, which also stars Katrina Kaif, is slated for a release on 5th June. The makers are yet to react on the PIL.&nbsp;

Five days ahead of the release of Salman Khan's 'Bharat', the film is facing problems because of its title. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in Delhi High Court on Thursday seeking a change of the title.

Five days ahead of the release of Salman Khan's 'Bharat', the film is facing problems because of its title. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in Delhi High Court on Thursday seeking a change of the title. According to the petitioner, Vikas Tyagi, the movie is "distorting the culture and political image of our great country `Bharat`." In his plea, Tyagi had contended that the title of the film is in violation of Section 3 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, according to which the word `Bharat` cannot be used for the commercial purpose.He has also sought change in one of the dialogues of the film where the character has been compared to the country, contending that it hurts the patriotic sentiments of the people of the country. "This film is fraught with Salman`s typical flippancy and vulgarity. Being a `Bharatiya`, I feel it is not appropriate to name such film or any character associated with this film after our great nation," Tyagi said. The movie, which also stars Katrina Kaif, is slated for a release on 5th June. The makers are yet to react on the PIL.

Bharat: PIL filed seeking change in film's title as it 'distorts political image of country'

A petition was filed before the Delhi High Court on Tuesday seeking direction to the Centre for considering the implementation of the two-child norm in a bid to control population growth.

The petitioner, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, sought direction to the government to ascertain the feasibility of implementing the 24th recommendation of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) regarding population control.

Upadhyay contended that the government should set two-child norm as a criterion for government jobs, aids, and subsidies, and should withdraw statutory rights such as the right to vote, right to contest, right to property, right to free shelter, and right to free legal aid if a person fails to comply with the norm.

The petitioner said the government should be asked to declare the first Sunday of every month as Health Day instead of Polio Day to spread awareness on population growth. It should provide contraceptive pills, condoms and vaccines to economically weaker sections and below poverty line (BPL) families, he added.

Upadhyay also sought direction to the Law Commission to prepare a comprehensive report on population explosion within three months and suggest ways to control it.

The court is likely to take up the matter for hearing on Thursday.

A petition was filed before the Delhi High Court on Tuesday seeking direction to the Centre for considering the implementation of the two-child norm in a bid to control population growth.

A petition was filed before the Delhi High Court on Tuesday seeking direction to the Centre for considering the implementation of the two-child norm in a bid to control population growth. The petitioner, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, sought direction to the government to ascertain the feasibility of implementing the 24th recommendation of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) regarding population control. Upadhyay contended that the government should set two-child norm as a criterion for government jobs, aids, and subsidies, and should withdraw statutory rights such as the right to vote, right to contest, right to property, right to free shelter, and right to free legal aid if a person fails to comply with the norm. The petitioner said the government should be asked to declare the first Sunday of every month as Health Day instead of Polio Day to spread awareness on population growth. It should provide contraceptive pills, condoms and vaccines to economically weaker sections and below poverty line (BPL) families, he added. Upadhyay also sought direction to the Law Commission to prepare a comprehensive report on population explosion within three months and suggest ways to control it. The court is likely to take up the matter for hearing on Thursday.

Petition filed in Delhi High Court seeking implementation of two-child norm

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought Robert Vadra's response on and Enforcement Directorate plea seeking cancellation of his anticipatory bail in a money-laundering case.

Justice Chander Shekhar issued a notice to Vadra on ED's petition challenging trial court's April 1 order, which granted him anticipatory bail.

The court also sought the response of Vadra's close aide Manoj Arora on the agency's plea seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing ED in the court, said they required his custody as Vadra was not cooperating in the investigation and the trial court had not discussed the gravity of the offence in its order.

Vadra, a brother-in-law of Congress president Rahul Gandhi, is facing allegations of money laundering in the purchase of a London-based property at 12, Bryanston Square worth 1.9 million pounds (over Rs 17 crore).

The case is being probed under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought Robert Vadra's response on and Enforcement Directorate plea seeking cancellation of his anticipatory bail in a money-laundering case.

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought Robert Vadra's response on and Enforcement Directorate plea seeking cancellation of his anticipatory bail in a money-laundering case. Justice Chander Shekhar issued a notice to Vadra on ED's petition challenging trial court's April 1 order, which granted him anticipatory bail. The court also sought the response of Vadra's close aide Manoj Arora on the agency's plea seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing ED in the court, said they required his custody as Vadra was not cooperating in the investigation and the trial court had not discussed the gravity of the offence in its order. Vadra, a brother-in-law of Congress president Rahul Gandhi, is facing allegations of money laundering in the purchase of a London-based property at 12, Bryanston Square worth 1.9 million pounds (over Rs 17 crore). The case is being probed under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Delhi HC seeks Robert Vadra's response on ED's plea to cancel anticipatory bail in PMLA case

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice DN Patel as the next Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.&nbsp;

Rajendra Menon, the current Chief Justice of Delhi, will be retiring in next month.&nbsp;

The apex court Collegium, last week, reiterated its recommendation to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-collegium-reiterates-names-of-justices-bose-bopanna-for-elevation-to-apex-court-217242">elevate Justices Aniruddha Bose and AS Bopanna</a> to the top court, news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice DN Patel as the next Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. The current Chief Justice of Delhi, Rajendra Menon will retire in June, 2019. <a href="https://t.co/2ggCqXqhI3">pic.twitter.com/2ggCqXqhI3</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1127862400517136385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Collegium observed that nothing adverse has been found regarding their competence, conduct or integrity. It also recommended names of Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant for the elevation.

The two resolutions of the Collegium were made public on the Supreme Court's website on Thursday.

On Wednesday, the 5-member Collegium headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had met and deliberated on the issue of elevation of the four high court judges.

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice DN Patel as the next Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. Rajendra Menon, the current Chief Justice of Delhi, will be retiring in next month.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice DN Patel as the next Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. Rajendra Menon, the current Chief Justice of Delhi, will be retiring in next month. The apex court Collegium, last week, reiterated its recommendation to elevate Justices Aniruddha Bose and AS Bopanna to the top court, news agency PTI reported. The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Justice DN Patel as the next Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. The current Chief Justice of Delhi, Rajendra Menon will retire in June, 2019. pic.twitter.com/2ggCqXqhI3 — ANI (@ANI) May 13, 2019 × The Collegium observed that nothing adverse has been found regarding their competence, conduct or integrity. It also recommended names of Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant for the elevation. The two resolutions of the Collegium were made public on the Supreme Court's website on Thursday. On Wednesday, the 5-member Collegium headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had met and deliberated on the issue of elevation of the four high court judges. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court Collegium recommends Justice DN Patel as next Chief Justice of Delhi High Court 

The <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-high-court-issues-notice-to-jet-airways-215111&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjIxIHtgoziAhUJK48KHfGiAM8QFjACegQIDhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw3zrNakfd_98p51v0qpt0M-">Delhi High Court</a> Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking to restrain Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) from making "false" electoral promise of full statehood for Delhi in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.

The plea came up before a bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A J Bhambhani which rejected it.

The plea also sought direction to the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/election-commission-issues-notice-to-pragya-singh-thakur-over-campaigning-despite-72-hour-ban-216032&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi5m9j_goziAhXLMY8KHfTVAisQFjACegQIDxAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw15paoMjd9kEDgRyRo9rBV7">Election Commission</a> to take appropriate action against Kejriwal and AAP for breach of a provision of the Representation of the People Act.

The petition filed by Anil Dutt Sharma said that AAP and Kejriwal have been advertising the promise to get full statehood for Delhi despite knowing that even if they will, they cannot grant it.

"The respondents no. 1 (Kejriwal) and 2 (AAP) do not have powers to make Delhi a complete statehood as they represent and seek to represent on Delhi government while that required to be the ruling party with the majority in both the houses of Parliament to grant Delhi full statehood. Admittedly, they are not contesting on sufficient seats to get them desired majority to amend the Constitution," it said.

On April 25, Kejriwal had said "We will fulfil a 70-year-old demand of the people of Delhi by granting full statehood. Both parties, BJP and Congress, have not fulfilled their promise of giving full statehood to Delhi. If Delhi becomes full statehood, we will not require the Centre's permission. The Anti-Corruption branch will be handled by the Delhi government again."

In Delhi, polling will take place on May 12 in the sixth phase of the Lok Sabha elections and the results will be announced on May 23.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking to restrain Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) from making "false" electoral promise of full statehood for Delhi in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.

The Delhi High Court Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking to restrain Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) from making "false" electoral promise of full statehood for Delhi in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. The plea came up before a bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A J Bhambhani which rejected it. The plea also sought direction to the Election Commission to take appropriate action against Kejriwal and AAP for breach of a provision of the Representation of the People Act. The petition filed by Anil Dutt Sharma said that AAP and Kejriwal have been advertising the promise to get full statehood for Delhi despite knowing that even if they will, they cannot grant it. "The respondents no. 1 (Kejriwal) and 2 (AAP) do not have powers to make Delhi a complete statehood as they represent and seek to represent on Delhi government while that required to be the ruling party with the majority in both the houses of Parliament to grant Delhi full statehood. Admittedly, they are not contesting on sufficient seats to get them desired majority to amend the Constitution," it said. On April 25, Kejriwal had said "We will fulfil a 70-year-old demand of the people of Delhi by granting full statehood. Both parties, BJP and Congress, have not fulfilled their promise of giving full statehood to Delhi. If Delhi becomes full statehood, we will not require the Centre's permission. The Anti-Corruption branch will be handled by the Delhi government again." In Delhi, polling will take place on May 12 in the sixth phase of the Lok Sabha elections and the results will be announced on May 23.

Delhi High Court dismisses plea to restrain Kejriwal, AAP from making full statehood promise for Delhi

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to Jet Airways regarding a plea seeking a full refund of the airfare to the passengers who were affected by the suspension of the airline's service.

The bench led by Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani also sought a reply from Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the Ministry of Civil Aviation in this regard.

The plea was filed by advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi on behalf of petitioner Bejon Kumar Mishra.

It sought prompt resolution to all the affected passengers by a full refund of the amount in respect of their booked air ticket or accommodation in other flights.

Jet Airways, on April 17, cancelled all flights, including its international flights temporarily, after failing to secure emergency funds from its lenders, according to a statement by the airlines.

July 16 has been set as the next date for hearing in the court.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to Jet Airways regarding a plea seeking a full refund of the airfare to the passengers who were affected by the suspension of the airline's service.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to Jet Airways regarding a plea seeking a full refund of the airfare to the passengers who were affected by the suspension of the airline's service. The bench led by Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani also sought a reply from Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the Ministry of Civil Aviation in this regard. The plea was filed by advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi on behalf of petitioner Bejon Kumar Mishra. It sought prompt resolution to all the affected passengers by a full refund of the amount in respect of their booked air ticket or accommodation in other flights. Jet Airways, on April 17, cancelled all flights, including its international flights temporarily, after failing to secure emergency funds from its lenders, according to a statement by the airlines. July 16 has been set as the next date for hearing in the court.

Delhi High Court issues notice to Jet Airways

A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court Monday seeking direction to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and DGCA to ensure refund or alternative mode of travel to passengers who had booked tickets with Jet Airways, which has temporarily suspended all its domestic and international flights.

The plea said the sudden suspension of air services of Jet Airways has resulted in a major crisis for the passengers who were not informed about it earlier.

The application filed by activist Bejon Kumar Misra sought direction to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to adopt prompt redressal mechanism for all affected passengers to access full refund of air tickets with reasonable compensation or arrange alternative mode of travel for them to reach their destination as an emergency exercise.

The plea is likely to come up for hearing on April 24.

The plea, filed through advocates Shashank Deo Sudhi and Shashi Bhushan, said, "It is common knowledge that all competitor airlines have exorbitantly increased their airfares and the toothless and vulnerable consumers are constrained to suffer not only in terms of money but also in terms of mental harassment of unprecedented scale."

Citing media report, it said more than Rs 360 crore of the passengers/consumers hard earned money is under threat due to non-refund of ticket value.

"The passengers have to not only purchase alternative tickets at a highly exorbitant cost but also go through lots of anxieties and mental agony. This has resulted in profiteering by other airlines at the cost of the passengers and till date no relief has been announced by the respondents (Ministry and DGCA). It is on record that such a situation was existing for more than two years, but was intentionally allowed by the authorities without any concern for passengers and other affected parties," the plea claimed.

It also said an amendment to the existing laws and appointment of an effective regulator is the need of the hour to protect the interest of passengers and regulate airfares in an open and transparent manner to avoid such events in future.

After months of uncertainty, Jet Airways announced a temporary suspension of its operations on April 17 as it failed to receive emergency funds from lenders.

A day after the airline suspended operations, hundreds of employees gathered in the national capital seeking measures to revive the carrier, which has been in operation for nearly 26 years.

Domestic lenders have invited bids for selling stake in Jet Airways. On April 18, the lenders said they were "reasonably hopeful" that the bidding process for the airline would end successfully.

A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court Monday seeking direction to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and DGCA to ensure refund or alternative mode of travel to passengers who had booked tickets with Jet Airways, which has temporarily suspended all its domestic and international flights.

A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court Monday seeking direction to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and DGCA to ensure refund or alternative mode of travel to passengers who had booked tickets with Jet Airways, which has temporarily suspended all its domestic and international flights. The plea said the sudden suspension of air services of Jet Airways has resulted in a major crisis for the passengers who were not informed about it earlier. The application filed by activist Bejon Kumar Misra sought direction to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to adopt prompt redressal mechanism for all affected passengers to access full refund of air tickets with reasonable compensation or arrange alternative mode of travel for them to reach their destination as an emergency exercise. The plea is likely to come up for hearing on April 24. The plea, filed through advocates Shashank Deo Sudhi and Shashi Bhushan, said, "It is common knowledge that all competitor airlines have exorbitantly increased their airfares and the toothless and vulnerable consumers are constrained to suffer not only in terms of money but also in terms of mental harassment of unprecedented scale." Citing media report, it said more than Rs 360 crore of the passengers/consumers hard earned money is under threat due to non-refund of ticket value. "The passengers have to not only purchase alternative tickets at a highly exorbitant cost but also go through lots of anxieties and mental agony. This has resulted in profiteering by other airlines at the cost of the passengers and till date no relief has been announced by the respondents (Ministry and DGCA). It is on record that such a situation was existing for more than two years, but was intentionally allowed by the authorities without any concern for passengers and other affected parties," the plea claimed. It also said an amendment to the existing laws and appointment of an effective regulator is the need of the hour to protect the interest of passengers and regulate airfares in an open and transparent manner to avoid such events in future. After months of uncertainty, Jet Airways announced a temporary suspension of its operations on April 17 as it failed to receive emergency funds from lenders. A day after the airline suspended operations, hundreds of employees gathered in the national capital seeking measures to revive the carrier, which has been in operation for nearly 26 years. Domestic lenders have invited bids for selling stake in Jet Airways. On April 18, the lenders said they were "reasonably hopeful" that the bidding process for the airline would end successfully.

Plea in Delhi High Court to provide refund or alternative flights to Jet Airways passengers

The Delhi High Court Monday granted more time to Christian Michel, arrested in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, and the CBI to respond to a plea by Tihar Jail authorities challenging an order allowing him to make international phone calls for 15 minutes in violation of prison rules.

Michel, lodged in Tihar Jail, was also produced before Justice Mukta Gupta in pursuance to the court's earlier direction.

The court was informed by CBI's Special Public Prosecutor that the panel of lawyers has been changed and the counsel, who will now represent the agency, received the case file on Sunday and sought time to respond to the plea.

Michel's counsel also sought time to file his response saying he was not given the copy of the petition after which the court asked the advocate for jail authorities to provide him the plea.

The court allowed the plea of counsel for CBI and Michel and granted them time to file their responses and listed the matter for further hearing on July 31.

Advocate Avi Singh, appearing for Tihar Jail, said the unequal treatment is continuing and due to this, other inmates have also started demanding the same.

The court had on March 18 asked the CBI and Michel to file their reply on the plea in which the jail authorities have alleged that no facts and circumstances were considered by the trial court for granting an "illegal and improper privilege of communication".

The trial court had in January allowed Michel to make international phone calls to his family, friends and lawyers and he was granted 15 minutes a week for making calls.

The jail's counsel had earlier said the prison manual provided only for 10 minutes per week for making calls.

He had said that as per the January 27, 2017 circular of prison authorities, a foreign national is only allowed to make calls to the country of his or her origin.

Michel's country of origin is the UK and as per the jail call records, he has been mostly contacting his "legal representative" in Italy.

The accused, lodged in jail under judicial custody, had approached the trial court seeking permission to make phone calls to his family and others, claiming that the prison authorities had rejected his plea.

Michel, extradited from Dubai, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on December 22 last year. He was later arrested by CBI in the case related to Rs 3,600 crore AgustaWestland deal.

The court had earlier imposed restrictions on Michel meeting his lawyers while he was in the ED's custody after the agency had said he was misusing the legal access by passing chits to his lawyers, asking them how to tackle questions on "Mrs Gandhi".

Michel is among the three alleged middlemen being probed in the case by the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The others are Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa.

ED, in its charge sheet filed against Michel in June 2016, had alleged that he had received 30 million euros (about Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland.

CBI, in its charge sheet, has alleged an estimated loss of 398.21 million euros (about Rs 2,666 crore) to the exchequer due to the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010, for the supply of VVIP choppers worth 556.262 million euros.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court Monday granted more time to Christian Michel, arrested in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, and the CBI to respond to a plea by Tihar Jail authorities challenging an order allowing him to make international phone calls for 15 minutes in violation of prison rules.

The Delhi High Court Monday granted more time to Christian Michel, arrested in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, and the CBI to respond to a plea by Tihar Jail authorities challenging an order allowing him to make international phone calls for 15 minutes in violation of prison rules. Michel, lodged in Tihar Jail, was also produced before Justice Mukta Gupta in pursuance to the court's earlier direction. The court was informed by CBI's Special Public Prosecutor that the panel of lawyers has been changed and the counsel, who will now represent the agency, received the case file on Sunday and sought time to respond to the plea. Michel's counsel also sought time to file his response saying he was not given the copy of the petition after which the court asked the advocate for jail authorities to provide him the plea. The court allowed the plea of counsel for CBI and Michel and granted them time to file their responses and listed the matter for further hearing on July 31. Advocate Avi Singh, appearing for Tihar Jail, said the unequal treatment is continuing and due to this, other inmates have also started demanding the same. The court had on March 18 asked the CBI and Michel to file their reply on the plea in which the jail authorities have alleged that no facts and circumstances were considered by the trial court for granting an "illegal and improper privilege of communication". The trial court had in January allowed Michel to make international phone calls to his family, friends and lawyers and he was granted 15 minutes a week for making calls. The jail's counsel had earlier said the prison manual provided only for 10 minutes per week for making calls. He had said that as per the January 27, 2017 circular of prison authorities, a foreign national is only allowed to make calls to the country of his or her origin. Michel's country of origin is the UK and as per the jail call records, he has been mostly contacting his "legal representative" in Italy. The accused, lodged in jail under judicial custody, had approached the trial court seeking permission to make phone calls to his family and others, claiming that the prison authorities had rejected his plea. Michel, extradited from Dubai, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on December 22 last year. He was later arrested by CBI in the case related to Rs 3,600 crore AgustaWestland deal. The court had earlier imposed restrictions on Michel meeting his lawyers while he was in the ED's custody after the agency had said he was misusing the legal access by passing chits to his lawyers, asking them how to tackle questions on "Mrs Gandhi". Michel is among the three alleged middlemen being probed in the case by the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The others are Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa. ED, in its charge sheet filed against Michel in June 2016, had alleged that he had received 30 million euros (about Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland. CBI, in its charge sheet, has alleged an estimated loss of 398.21 million euros (about Rs 2,666 crore) to the exchequer due to the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010, for the supply of VVIP choppers worth 556.262 million euros.

Delhi High Court grants time to CBI, Michel to file reply on Tihar Jail plea against his phone calls

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Reserve Bank as to how was GPay, Google’s mobile payment app, facilitating financial transactions without its authorisation.

A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A J Bhambhani posed the query to RBI while hearing a PIL which claimed that Google Pay (GPay) was operating as a payments system provider in violation of the Payments and Settlements Act as it has no valid authorisation from the central bank to carry out such functions.

The court issued a notice to Reserve Bank of India and Google India seeking their stand on the issue raised in the plea by Abhijit Mishra, who contended that GPay does not figure in RBI’s list of authorised ‘payment systems operators’ released on March 20, 2019.

“How are they (GPay) operating without permission,” the bench asked RBI and listed the matter for further hearing on April 29.

Mishra has also raised privacy concerns by claiming that “GPay through its unauthorised operation in India as a payment and settlement systems has un-monitored and unauthorised access to the personal information such as Aadhaar, PAN, (financial) transactions etc. of the public”.

The petition has sought a direction to RBI to order Google to “immediately” stop GPay’s “unauthorised operation” in India.

In response to a query about payment system operators, RBI has said that its authorisation was mandatory for setting up such a mechanism in India, the petition stated.

RBI also said that GPay was not on the list of authorised payment system operators, the plea stated, adding that “as on March 30, 2019, GPay is not a listed partner of the Bhim Aadhaar app as per the official website of Bhim Aadhaar”.

Bharat Interface for Money application, also known as ‘BHIM app’, has been developed by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) for facilitating payments through mobile phones, the petition said.

It has further said that RBI’s master circular of April 6 last year on storage of payment system data states that all such entities should ensure that the entire data related to payment systems operated by them are stored only in India.

Google Pay by virtue of unauthorised access to the BHIM Aadhaar Unified Payments Interface (UPI) can have a serious detrimental effect on the privacy and personal liberty of Indian citizens as the data might be stored in servers located outside India.

“This is in gross violation of the principals enshrined under the purview of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by letting an unauthorised private company to access the personal account details of the Indian citizens,” Mishra, who claims to be a financial economist, has claimed in his plea.

The petition has also contended that GPay was operating in “complete defiance” of the RBI’s scheme to constitute an ombudsman for redressal of complaints against deficiency in services related to digital transactions.

The petitioner has sought a “compliance audit” of GPay under the Payments and Settlements Act and to impose penalties on Google India for GPay’s unauthorised operation in contravention of the laws, regulations and procedure”.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Reserve Bank as to how was GPay, Google’s mobile payment app, facilitating financial transactions without its authorisation.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Reserve Bank as to how was GPay, Google’s mobile payment app, facilitating financial transactions without its authorisation. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A J Bhambhani posed the query to RBI while hearing a PIL which claimed that Google Pay (GPay) was operating as a payments system provider in violation of the Payments and Settlements Act as it has no valid authorisation from the central bank to carry out such functions. The court issued a notice to Reserve Bank of India and Google India seeking their stand on the issue raised in the plea by Abhijit Mishra, who contended that GPay does not figure in RBI’s list of authorised ‘payment systems operators’ released on March 20, 2019. “How are they (GPay) operating without permission,” the bench asked RBI and listed the matter for further hearing on April 29. Mishra has also raised privacy concerns by claiming that “GPay through its unauthorised operation in India as a payment and settlement systems has un-monitored and unauthorised access to the personal information such as Aadhaar, PAN, (financial) transactions etc. of the public”. The petition has sought a direction to RBI to order Google to “immediately” stop GPay’s “unauthorised operation” in India. In response to a query about payment system operators, RBI has said that its authorisation was mandatory for setting up such a mechanism in India, the petition stated. RBI also said that GPay was not on the list of authorised payment system operators, the plea stated, adding that “as on March 30, 2019, GPay is not a listed partner of the Bhim Aadhaar app as per the official website of Bhim Aadhaar”. Bharat Interface for Money application, also known as ‘BHIM app’, has been developed by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) for facilitating payments through mobile phones, the petition said. It has further said that RBI’s master circular of April 6 last year on storage of payment system data states that all such entities should ensure that the entire data related to payment systems operated by them are stored only in India. Google Pay by virtue of unauthorised access to the BHIM Aadhaar Unified Payments Interface (UPI) can have a serious detrimental effect on the privacy and personal liberty of Indian citizens as the data might be stored in servers located outside India. “This is in gross violation of the principals enshrined under the purview of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by letting an unauthorised private company to access the personal account details of the Indian citizens,” Mishra, who claims to be a financial economist, has claimed in his plea. The petition has also contended that GPay was operating in “complete defiance” of the RBI’s scheme to constitute an ombudsman for redressal of complaints against deficiency in services related to digital transactions. The petitioner has sought a “compliance audit” of GPay under the Payments and Settlements Act and to impose penalties on Google India for GPay’s unauthorised operation in contravention of the laws, regulations and procedure”.

How is 'Google Pay' operating without authorisation: Delhi high court asks RBI

The Delhi Court dismissed the PIL that sought a stay on the release on the film 'PM Narendra Modi'. Based on the Indian Prime Minister's life, the film will now release on 5th April as per schedule.&nbsp;

Members of<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/biopic-on-pm-modi-is-politically-motivated-put-ban-on-its-release-congress-to-election-commission-205812"> Congress party had alleged that the film was flouting the model code of conduct </a>as it is being released ahead of Lok Sabha elections. The party had appealed to the election commission to stay the release of the film.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi High Court dismisses the PIL seeking stay on release of film 'PM Narendra Modi' during the period of Model Code of Conduct, ahead of Lok Sabha elections. <a href="https://t.co/6foNQ2Z8Kq">pic.twitter.com/6foNQ2Z8Kq</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1112623032747610112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The PIL that was filed sought the stay on the grounds film as it would strengthen the image of PM Narendra Modi and influence the voters. Similar PILs have been filed in the Allahabad High Court and the Bombay High Court as well- verdict on which is yet to be declared. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/javed-akhtar-denies-writing-songs-for-pm-narendra-modi-biopic-tweets-shocked-204911">Also read:&nbsp;Javed Akhtar denies writing songs for 'PM Narendra Modi' biopic, tweets 'shocked'</a>

The film has Vivek Oberoi playing PM Modi and has been directed by Omung Kumar who has in the past made films like 'Sarabjeet' and 'Mary Kom'. It has been produced by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/pm-narendra-modi-biopic-producer-sandip-ssingh-in-trouble-alleged-sexual-assault-allegations-resurface-205647">Sandeep Ssingh </a>who also serves as the writer for the film.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Delhi Court dismissed the PIL that sought a stay on the release on the film 'PM Narendra Modi'. Based on the Indian Prime Minister's life, the film will now release on 5th April as per schedule.

The Delhi Court dismissed the PIL that sought a stay on the release on the film 'PM Narendra Modi'. Based on the Indian Prime Minister's life, the film will now release on 5th April as per schedule. Members of Congress party had alleged that the film was flouting the model code of conduct as it is being released ahead of Lok Sabha elections. The party had appealed to the election commission to stay the release of the film. Delhi High Court dismisses the PIL seeking stay on release of film 'PM Narendra Modi' during the period of Model Code of Conduct, ahead of Lok Sabha elections. pic.twitter.com/6foNQ2Z8Kq — ANI (@ANI) April 1, 2019 × The PIL that was filed sought the stay on the grounds film as it would strengthen the image of PM Narendra Modi and influence the voters. Similar PILs have been filed in the Allahabad High Court and the Bombay High Court as well- verdict on which is yet to be declared. Also read: Javed Akhtar denies writing songs for 'PM Narendra Modi' biopic, tweets 'shocked' The film has Vivek Oberoi playing PM Modi and has been directed by Omung Kumar who has in the past made films like 'Sarabjeet' and 'Mary Kom'. It has been produced by Sandeep Ssingh who also serves as the writer for the film.

'PM Narendra Modi' release: Delhi High Court dismisses PIL seeking stay on film

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant interim relief to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-court-extends-robert-vadras-anticipatory-bail-till-march-25-ed-says-his-custodial-interrogation-required-204293">accused Robert Vadra</a> and Manoj Arora on their pleas seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case.

"The anticipatory bail plea is already being heard in the Patiala House court, hence, we will not interfere right now," a division bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Vinod Goel said.&nbsp;

It directed the ED to furnish a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR)/FIR filed in Delhi against Vadra, brother-in-law of Congress president Rahul Gandhi, and his aide Arora.

The bench asked the agency to file a response to another prayer of the petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

During the proceedings, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta questioned the maintainability of the petition, saying that the matter concerned is pending before the Supreme Court.

Mehta, appearing for the ED, told the court that Vadra and Arora`s pleas seeking quashing of the case against them is an abuse of the process of the law.

The court also sought a response from the Centre and then slated the matter for hearing on May 2. Vadra has challenged sections 3 (offence of money laundering), 19 (power to arrest), 24 (burden of proof) and 50 (powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and evidence, etc) of the PMLA.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and KTS Tulsi appeared for Vadra and Arora while Solicitor General Tusshar Mehta and advocate DP Singh represented the ED.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, Vadra had moved the high court seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the ED in a money laundering case for which he has been interrogated by the agency.

Vadra, husband of Priyanka Gandhi, has also sought to declare certain sections of the PLMA, 2002 as ultra vires to the Constitution.

The money laundering case filed against Vadra is related to the purchase of a London-based property at 12, Bryanston Square, allegedly worth 1.9 million pounds.

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant interim relief to accused Robert Vadra and Manoj Arora on their pleas seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case.

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant interim relief to accused Robert Vadra and Manoj Arora on their pleas seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case. "The anticipatory bail plea is already being heard in the Patiala House court, hence, we will not interfere right now," a division bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Vinod Goel said. It directed the ED to furnish a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR)/FIR filed in Delhi against Vadra, brother-in-law of Congress president Rahul Gandhi, and his aide Arora. The bench asked the agency to file a response to another prayer of the petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). During the proceedings, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta questioned the maintainability of the petition, saying that the matter concerned is pending before the Supreme Court. Mehta, appearing for the ED, told the court that Vadra and Arora`s pleas seeking quashing of the case against them is an abuse of the process of the law. The court also sought a response from the Centre and then slated the matter for hearing on May 2. Vadra has challenged sections 3 (offence of money laundering), 19 (power to arrest), 24 (burden of proof) and 50 (powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and evidence, etc) of the PMLA. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and KTS Tulsi appeared for Vadra and Arora while Solicitor General Tusshar Mehta and advocate DP Singh represented the ED. On Wednesday, Vadra had moved the high court seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the ED in a money laundering case for which he has been interrogated by the agency. Vadra, husband of Priyanka Gandhi, has also sought to declare certain sections of the PLMA, 2002 as ultra vires to the Constitution. The money laundering case filed against Vadra is related to the purchase of a London-based property at 12, Bryanston Square, allegedly worth 1.9 million pounds.

Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim relief to Robert Vadra, Manoj Arora

The Delhi High Court Monday sought response of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-court-asks-tihar-authorities-for-christian-michels-prison-footage-203710">Christian Michel</a>, arrested in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, and the CBI on Tihar Jail authorities' plea challenging an order allowing him to make international phone calls in violation of prison rules.

Justice Mukta Gupta issued a notice to Michel and CBI on the jail authorities plea in which they alleged that no facts and circumstances were considered by the trial court for granting an "illegal and improper privilege of communication".

The trial court had in January allowed Michel to make international phone calls to his family, friends and lawyers and he was granted 15 minutes a week for making calls.

Advocate Avi Singh, appearing for Tihar Jail, said the prison manual provided only for 10 minutes per week for making calls.

He said that as per the January 27, 2017 circular of prison authorities, a foreign national is only allowed to make calls to the country of his or her origin.

Michel's country of origin is the UK and as per the jail call records, he has been mostly contacting his "legal representative" in Italy.

The high court listed the matter for further hearing on April 22 and said that Michel be produced before it on the next date, if already not released from jail.

The accused, lodged in jail under judicial custody, had approached the trial court seeking permission to make phone calls to his family and others, claiming that the prison authorities had rejected his plea.

Michel, extradited from Dubai, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on December 22 last year. He was later arrested by CBI in the case related to Rs 3,600 crore AgustaWestland deal.

The court had earlier imposed restrictions on Michel meeting his lawyers while he was in the ED's custody, after the agency had said he was misusing the legal access by passing chits to his lawyers, asking them how to tackle questions on "Mrs Gandhi".

Michel is among the three alleged middlemen being probed in the case by the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The others are Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa.

ED, in its charge sheet filed against Michel in June 2016, had alleged that he had received 30 million euros (about Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland.

CBI, in its charge sheet, has alleged an estimated loss of 398.21 million euros (about Rs 2,666 crore) to the exchequer due to the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010 for the supply of VVIP choppers worth 556.262 million euros.

The Delhi High Court Monday sought response of Christian Michel, arrested in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, and the CBI on Tihar Jail authorities' plea challenging an order allowing him to make international phone calls in violation of prison rules.

The Delhi High Court Monday sought response of Christian Michel, arrested in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, and the CBI on Tihar Jail authorities' plea challenging an order allowing him to make international phone calls in violation of prison rules. Justice Mukta Gupta issued a notice to Michel and CBI on the jail authorities plea in which they alleged that no facts and circumstances were considered by the trial court for granting an "illegal and improper privilege of communication". The trial court had in January allowed Michel to make international phone calls to his family, friends and lawyers and he was granted 15 minutes a week for making calls. Advocate Avi Singh, appearing for Tihar Jail, said the prison manual provided only for 10 minutes per week for making calls. He said that as per the January 27, 2017 circular of prison authorities, a foreign national is only allowed to make calls to the country of his or her origin. Michel's country of origin is the UK and as per the jail call records, he has been mostly contacting his "legal representative" in Italy. The high court listed the matter for further hearing on April 22 and said that Michel be produced before it on the next date, if already not released from jail. The accused, lodged in jail under judicial custody, had approached the trial court seeking permission to make phone calls to his family and others, claiming that the prison authorities had rejected his plea. Michel, extradited from Dubai, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on December 22 last year. He was later arrested by CBI in the case related to Rs 3,600 crore AgustaWestland deal. The court had earlier imposed restrictions on Michel meeting his lawyers while he was in the ED's custody, after the agency had said he was misusing the legal access by passing chits to his lawyers, asking them how to tackle questions on "Mrs Gandhi". Michel is among the three alleged middlemen being probed in the case by the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The others are Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa. ED, in its charge sheet filed against Michel in June 2016, had alleged that he had received 30 million euros (about Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland. CBI, in its charge sheet, has alleged an estimated loss of 398.21 million euros (about Rs 2,666 crore) to the exchequer due to the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010 for the supply of VVIP choppers worth 556.262 million euros.

High Court seeks CBI, Christian Michel's reply on Tihar Jail plea against his phone calls

Delhi high court on Thursday dismissed a National Herald publisher AJL's plea challenging an order to evict its premises in Delhi.

A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao rejected the appeal of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) in which it had challenged the Centre's decision asking it to vacate the ITO premises, reported news agency PTI.&nbsp;

The AJL had appealed against the single judge's December 21, 2018 order that directed it to vacate the premises at ITO within two weeks, after which eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, would be initiated.

However, the court has not clarified on the timing of eviction the Herald building.

Delhi high court on Thursday dismissed a National Herald publisher AJL's plea challenging an order to evict its premises in Delhi. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao rejected the appeal of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) in which it had challenged the Centre's decision asking it to vacate the ITO premises, reported news agency PTI.

Delhi high court on Thursday dismissed a National Herald publisher AJL's plea challenging an order to evict its premises in Delhi. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao rejected the appeal of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) in which it had challenged the Centre's decision asking it to vacate the ITO premises, reported news agency PTI. The AJL had appealed against the single judge's December 21, 2018 order that directed it to vacate the premises at ITO within two weeks, after which eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, would be initiated. However, the court has not clarified on the timing of eviction the Herald building.

Delhi high court upholds eviction of Associated Journals Limited from Herald House

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking directions to the media to use the words martyr or 'shaheed' instead of 'killed' when reporting deaths of security personnel in terror or other attacks.

A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao declined to hear the petition by a lawyer, who had contended that use of words like 'killed' or 'died' was not respectful.

Referring to the February 14 terror attack in Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir, Chaudhary said the deaths should have been described by the media using "respectful words" like martyred or 'shaheed' and not killed or died.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking directions to the media to use the words martyr or 'shaheed' instead of 'killed' when reporting deaths of security personnel in terror or other attacks.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking directions to the media to use the words martyr or 'shaheed' instead of 'killed' when reporting deaths of security personnel in terror or other attacks. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V K Rao declined to hear the petition by a lawyer, who had contended that use of words like 'killed' or 'died' was not respectful. Referring to the February 14 terror attack in Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir, Chaudhary said the deaths should have been described by the media using "respectful words" like martyred or 'shaheed' and not killed or died.

High Court dismisses a plea asking media to use word martyr for reporting casualties in terror attacks

delhi-high-court

Delhi High Court, News on Delhi High Court, stories on Delhi High Court, articles on Delhi High Court, Delhi High Court stories at Wion, Delhi High Court news, Delhi High Court latest news

delhi high-court