Madras High Court Saturday directed the Election Commission to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against PA (General) to Madurai District Collector and two officials for allowing polling staff to enter a storage room where records of the April 18 Lok Sabha polls to the Madurai constituency are kept.

Besides the PA, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime), who was in charge of election duty that day and police personnel present there reportedly allowed a woman tehsildar and three other polling staff to enter the room.

The court directed the EC to take the action on those involved as pointed out by the Enquiry Officer after it observed that "absolutely no action" was taken against the PA (General), of the Collector, the ACP and the policemen post the incident.

The division bench, comprising Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad, passed the interim order on the petition filed by Su Venkatesan, the CPI(M) candidate who contested in Madurai Parliamentary Constituency.

According to the petitioner, the tehsildar allegedly trespassed into the documents storage room on April 20 without any authority and remained there for three hours.

The petitioner has submitted that three staff members of Madurai Municipal Corporation had also accompanied her.

Alleging that the unlawful incident would not have occurred without the knowledge of District Collector Natarajan, who is the Returning Officer, Venkatesan had sought an interim direction for appointment of a special observer of the rank of an IAS officer for counting the postal ballots.

Besides, the petitioner also sought three-tier security for the counting centre, transfer of the returning officer and appointment of a SIT.

When the bench was inclined to pass an order on District Collector Natarajan, who is also the Returning Officer (RO) and other officials, ECI's counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan produced a letter dated April 27 of the EC Secretary.

The letter stated that S Nagarajan would replace Natarajan and Shantha Kumar would be Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) in place of Guru Chandran with immediate effect.

The judges recorded the EC's submission that disciplinary action would be initiated against the erring RO and ARO in response to its observation on whether the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, was powerless in the matter.

The bench said it was not going into the controversy as to who was empowered to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against the erring officials and posted the matter for further hearing to April 30.&nbsp;

Madras High Court Saturday directed the Election Commission to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against PA (General) to Madurai District Collector and two officials for allowing polling staff to enter a storage room where records of the April 18 Lok Sabha polls to the Madurai constituency are kept.

Madras High Court Saturday directed the Election Commission to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against PA (General) to Madurai District Collector and two officials for allowing polling staff to enter a storage room where records of the April 18 Lok Sabha polls to the Madurai constituency are kept. Besides the PA, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime), who was in charge of election duty that day and police personnel present there reportedly allowed a woman tehsildar and three other polling staff to enter the room. The court directed the EC to take the action on those involved as pointed out by the Enquiry Officer after it observed that "absolutely no action" was taken against the PA (General), of the Collector, the ACP and the policemen post the incident. The division bench, comprising Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad, passed the interim order on the petition filed by Su Venkatesan, the CPI(M) candidate who contested in Madurai Parliamentary Constituency. According to the petitioner, the tehsildar allegedly trespassed into the documents storage room on April 20 without any authority and remained there for three hours. The petitioner has submitted that three staff members of Madurai Municipal Corporation had also accompanied her. Alleging that the unlawful incident would not have occurred without the knowledge of District Collector Natarajan, who is the Returning Officer, Venkatesan had sought an interim direction for appointment of a special observer of the rank of an IAS officer for counting the postal ballots. Besides, the petitioner also sought three-tier security for the counting centre, transfer of the returning officer and appointment of a SIT. When the bench was inclined to pass an order on District Collector Natarajan, who is also the Returning Officer (RO) and other officials, ECI's counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan produced a letter dated April 27 of the EC Secretary. The letter stated that S Nagarajan would replace Natarajan and Shantha Kumar would be Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) in place of Guru Chandran with immediate effect. The judges recorded the EC's submission that disciplinary action would be initiated against the erring RO and ARO in response to its observation on whether the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, was powerless in the matter. The bench said it was not going into the controversy as to who was empowered to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against the erring officials and posted the matter for further hearing to April 30.

Initiate disciplinary action against erring poll officials: High Court to Election Commission

The Delhi High Court Friday directed the CBI to file a timeline of events relating to the ongoing investigation in a bribery case involving the agency's former special director <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rakesh-asthana-bribery-case-delhi-hc-raps-cbi-says-its-unfortunate-you-dont-trust-your-counsel-206310&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiinbCcw8rhAhVbiXAKHbgZB-YQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw04ZQuKxpRjGhtSPJthJDfl">Rakesh Asthana </a>and the need for sending Letters Rogatory (LRs) to various countries.

The court questioned the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-special-director-asthana-moves-delhi-hc-seeking-correction-in-recent-judgement-190801"> CBI </a>for not sending the LRs till now even though it had passed in January the order dismissing the pleas of Asthana and two others seeking to quash the FIR.

Justice Mukta Gupta said the document, to be filed through Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee, should also include when the requirement of issuing LRs came to the knowledge of the investigating officers and the details of the CBI officers who spent last 2-3 months on it.

"The ASG will prepare a list of dates and events indicating when the requirement of LRs came to the notice of the IOs. Who spent these 2-3 months and how, resulting in not sending the LRs till date," the court said, asking the agency to file the document in a sealed cover.

Letters Rogatory are a formal request from a court to a foreign court for some judicial assistance.

The court listed the matter for April 23 for further hearing on CBI's application seeking more time to complete the probe in the case lodged against Asthana, DSP Devender Kumar and middleman Manoj Prasad.

On January 11, the court had granted 10 weeks to the probe agency to complete its investigation.

ASG and advocate Rajdipa Behura, representing the CBI, sough six months to complete the investigation.

When the court observed that six months was too much, the CBI counsel suggested for giving four months.

"When this came to your notice that you need to send LRs to other countries. If you move at a snail's pace, who is responsible for it. I know how it works in a typical bureaucratic manner," the judge said.

On instructions, ASG said the CBI officials had come to know of the need of LRs earlier but a decision was taken on it in March.

The high court in January had disposed of three petitions of Asthana, Kumar and Prasad, by a common order in which CBI was directed to complete investigation in the case within ten weeks.

Earlier, Kumar's lawyers had told the court that the application was not maintainable according to section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which states that a court may not alter or review its final order in a matter except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

The court had not agreed with the contention, saying the instant matters were writ petitions and not a criminal complaint and therefore, section 362 may not be applicable.

Asthana was booked on the allegations of criminal conspiracy, corruption and criminal misconduct under the relevant sections of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Kumar, earlier the investigating officer in a case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi, was arrested on the allegations of forgery in recording the statement of Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana, who had alleged having paid the bribe to get relief in the case.

He was arrested on October 22, 2018, and granted bail on October 31.

The Delhi High Court Friday directed the CBI to file a timeline of events relating to the ongoing investigation in a bribery case involving the agency's former special director Rakesh Asthana and the need for sending Letters Rogatory (LRs) to various countries.

The Delhi High Court Friday directed the CBI to file a timeline of events relating to the ongoing investigation in a bribery case involving the agency's former special director Rakesh Asthana and the need for sending Letters Rogatory (LRs) to various countries. The court questioned the CBI for not sending the LRs till now even though it had passed in January the order dismissing the pleas of Asthana and two others seeking to quash the FIR. Justice Mukta Gupta said the document, to be filed through Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee, should also include when the requirement of issuing LRs came to the knowledge of the investigating officers and the details of the CBI officers who spent last 2-3 months on it. "The ASG will prepare a list of dates and events indicating when the requirement of LRs came to the notice of the IOs. Who spent these 2-3 months and how, resulting in not sending the LRs till date," the court said, asking the agency to file the document in a sealed cover. Letters Rogatory are a formal request from a court to a foreign court for some judicial assistance. The court listed the matter for April 23 for further hearing on CBI's application seeking more time to complete the probe in the case lodged against Asthana, DSP Devender Kumar and middleman Manoj Prasad. On January 11, the court had granted 10 weeks to the probe agency to complete its investigation. ASG and advocate Rajdipa Behura, representing the CBI, sough six months to complete the investigation. When the court observed that six months was too much, the CBI counsel suggested for giving four months. "When this came to your notice that you need to send LRs to other countries. If you move at a snail's pace, who is responsible for it. I know how it works in a typical bureaucratic manner," the judge said. On instructions, ASG said the CBI officials had come to know of the need of LRs earlier but a decision was taken on it in March. The high court in January had disposed of three petitions of Asthana, Kumar and Prasad, by a common order in which CBI was directed to complete investigation in the case within ten weeks. Earlier, Kumar's lawyers had told the court that the application was not maintainable according to section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which states that a court may not alter or review its final order in a matter except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The court had not agreed with the contention, saying the instant matters were writ petitions and not a criminal complaint and therefore, section 362 may not be applicable. Asthana was booked on the allegations of criminal conspiracy, corruption and criminal misconduct under the relevant sections of Prevention of Corruption Act. Kumar, earlier the investigating officer in a case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi, was arrested on the allegations of forgery in recording the statement of Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana, who had alleged having paid the bribe to get relief in the case. He was arrested on October 22, 2018, and granted bail on October 31.

Bribery case against Rakesh Asthana: High Court asks CBI to file timeline on need for sending LRs to nations

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought response of the Centre on a plea which has challenged the constitutional validity of the recent<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cabinet-approves-aadhaar-ordinance-to-allow-its-use-as-id-proof-for-bank-accounts-sim-connection-200400&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwivoa2fvMrhAhUf7nMBHSojCH4QFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0qq062J_i_MOrh6Ujt3z-v"> Aadhaar </a>Ordinance on the grounds that it was brought to "overturn" the Supreme Court decision regarding the use of Aadhaar by the private sector.

A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A J Bhambhani asked the Ministry of Law to indicate its stand by July 9, the next date of hearing.

The matter came up before the bench as the apex court on April 5 had directed the petitioners, both lawyers, to first move the high court.

A five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court had in September last year declared the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid but struck down some of its provisions including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions.

The court had held that while Aadhaar would remain mandatory for the filing of Income Tax returns and allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN), it would not be mandatory to link Aadhaar to bank accounts and telecom service providers cannot seek its linking for mobile connections.&nbsp;

According to the petitioners, Reepak Kansal and Yadunandan Bansal, the ordinance allows the private sector to use the Aadhaar infrastructure through the back door by amending the Indian Telegraph Act.

The petition has said that the ordinance amends the Telegraph Act to provide for voluntary use of Aadhaar for identity verification.

It has claimed that this allows telecom companies to use Aadhaar ID for identity verification.

The petitioners have also contended that there was "no extraordinary situation" which required passing of such an ordinance.

President Ram Nath Kovind had last month given his assent to the Aadhaar Ordinance that allowed voluntary use of Aadhaar as ID proof for obtaining mobile SIM cards and opening bank accounts.

The ordinance was necessitated because Rajya Sabha could not approve a Bill after its passage by Lok Sabha.

The Cabinet had approved the promulgation of the ordinance to give effect to changes proposed in Aadhaar and two others legislations.

The amendments provide for stiff penalties for violation of norms set for the use of Aadhaar and violation of privacy.

It bans storing of core biometric information as well as Aadhaar number by service providers in cases of individuals who have voluntarily offered the national ID as a means of authentication.

However, the amendments make it clear that anyone not offering Aadhaar cannot be denied any service, be it opening of a bank account or obtaining a mobile phone SIM card.&nbsp;

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought response of the Centre on a plea which has challenged the constitutional validity of the recent Aadhaar Ordinance on the grounds that it was brought to "overturn" the Supreme Court decision regarding the use of Aadhaar by the private sector.

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought response of the Centre on a plea which has challenged the constitutional validity of the recent Aadhaar Ordinance on the grounds that it was brought to "overturn" the Supreme Court decision regarding the use of Aadhaar by the private sector. A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice A J Bhambhani asked the Ministry of Law to indicate its stand by July 9, the next date of hearing. The matter came up before the bench as the apex court on April 5 had directed the petitioners, both lawyers, to first move the high court. A five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court had in September last year declared the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid but struck down some of its provisions including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions. The court had held that while Aadhaar would remain mandatory for the filing of Income Tax returns and allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN), it would not be mandatory to link Aadhaar to bank accounts and telecom service providers cannot seek its linking for mobile connections. According to the petitioners, Reepak Kansal and Yadunandan Bansal, the ordinance allows the private sector to use the Aadhaar infrastructure through the back door by amending the Indian Telegraph Act. The petition has said that the ordinance amends the Telegraph Act to provide for voluntary use of Aadhaar for identity verification. It has claimed that this allows telecom companies to use Aadhaar ID for identity verification. The petitioners have also contended that there was "no extraordinary situation" which required passing of such an ordinance. President Ram Nath Kovind had last month given his assent to the Aadhaar Ordinance that allowed voluntary use of Aadhaar as ID proof for obtaining mobile SIM cards and opening bank accounts. The ordinance was necessitated because Rajya Sabha could not approve a Bill after its passage by Lok Sabha. The Cabinet had approved the promulgation of the ordinance to give effect to changes proposed in Aadhaar and two others legislations. The amendments provide for stiff penalties for violation of norms set for the use of Aadhaar and violation of privacy. It bans storing of core biometric information as well as Aadhaar number by service providers in cases of individuals who have voluntarily offered the national ID as a means of authentication. However, the amendments make it clear that anyone not offering Aadhaar cannot be denied any service, be it opening of a bank account or obtaining a mobile phone SIM card.

Plea challenges Aadhaar ordinance: High Court seeks Centre's stand

Fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi, undergoing extradition proceedings in the UK, intends to appeal for bail in the UK High Court after a second bail application was rejected by a lower court in London last week in the USD 1-billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case. 
Advertising

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which represents the Indian authorities through the extradition process in the UK courts, said the 48-year-old intends to appeal against Judge Emma Arbuthnot’s decision to turn down his bail plea at the end of a hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court last Friday on the grounds that there was a “substantial risk he would fail to surrender”.

“Mr Modi intends to appeal his bail decision, but he has not yet submitted the appeal,” a CPS spokesperson confirmed on Tuesday.

The diamond merchant, who has been behind bars at HMP Wandsworth in south-west London ever since his first bail application was rejected on March 20, can apply for a High Court bail appeal at any time until his next remand hearing on April 26.

However, his legal team must give the CPS 48 hours’ notice and the bail hearing must be listed within 48 hours of the appeal being lodged in the higher court.

“We are not making any comment at this time,” Modi’s solicitor Anand Doobay said, in reference to plans for a bail appeal application.

It remains to be seen how Modi’s legal team is able to further bolster the bail application after Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot ruled that 1 million pounds offered as security for bail as well as the offer to meet stringent electronic tag restrictions on their client’s movements, “akin to house arrest”, were not sufficient to convince her that he did not pose a flight risk.

“This is a case of substantial fraud, with a loss to a bank in India of between USD 1-2 billion. I am not persuaded that the conditional bail sought will meet the concerns of the government of India in this case,” the judge noted.

The court was told that Modi’s son, who had been at a school in London, had now left for higher studies in the US, which led the judge to conclude that Modi not only had a “lack of community ties” in the UK but also large resources at his disposal to try and flee the country.

Modi’s attempt to acquire the citizenship of Vanuatu in late 2017 also went against him as the judge said it seemed like he was trying to “move away from India at an important time”.

Clare Montgomery, Modi’s barrister, had made a series of offers to try and convince the judge to grant bail, even bringing up his pet dog.

“He did have a son at Charterhouse (school in London) who has now gone to a university in the States and as a sign of ageing parents, led Mr Modi to get a dog instead. None of these actions is emblematic of someone setting out to flee the country,” Montgomery had claimed.

“It is nonsense to say that he is a flight risk. He does not have a safe haven open to him and he has not travelled or applied for citizenship elsewhere…he only qualifies for leave to remain in this country,” she said.

CPS barrister Toby Cadman told the judge that there was a “substantial risk” that the prime accused in the PNB fraud case, “of an amount between USD 1 and 2 billion”, would flee and attempt to interfere with witnesses and evidence.

Judge Arbuthnot accepted the Indian government’s arguments, noting the “very unusual” evidence she had seen at this early stage in the case of interference with witnesses and destruction of evidence in the form of mobile phones and a server.

The court was told that Modi was the “principal beneficiary” of the fraudulent issuance of letters of undertaking (LoUs) as part of a conspiracy to defraud PNB and then laundering the proceeds of crime.

Fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi, undergoing extradition proceedings in the UK, intends to appeal for bail in the UK High Court after a second bail application was rejected by a lower court in London last week in the USD 1-billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case.

Fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi, undergoing extradition proceedings in the UK, intends to appeal for bail in the UK High Court after a second bail application was rejected by a lower court in London last week in the USD 1-billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case. Advertising The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which represents the Indian authorities through the extradition process in the UK courts, said the 48-year-old intends to appeal against Judge Emma Arbuthnot’s decision to turn down his bail plea at the end of a hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court last Friday on the grounds that there was a “substantial risk he would fail to surrender”. “Mr Modi intends to appeal his bail decision, but he has not yet submitted the appeal,” a CPS spokesperson confirmed on Tuesday. The diamond merchant, who has been behind bars at HMP Wandsworth in south-west London ever since his first bail application was rejected on March 20, can apply for a High Court bail appeal at any time until his next remand hearing on April 26. However, his legal team must give the CPS 48 hours’ notice and the bail hearing must be listed within 48 hours of the appeal being lodged in the higher court. “We are not making any comment at this time,” Modi’s solicitor Anand Doobay said, in reference to plans for a bail appeal application. It remains to be seen how Modi’s legal team is able to further bolster the bail application after Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot ruled that 1 million pounds offered as security for bail as well as the offer to meet stringent electronic tag restrictions on their client’s movements, “akin to house arrest”, were not sufficient to convince her that he did not pose a flight risk. “This is a case of substantial fraud, with a loss to a bank in India of between USD 1-2 billion. I am not persuaded that the conditional bail sought will meet the concerns of the government of India in this case,” the judge noted. The court was told that Modi’s son, who had been at a school in London, had now left for higher studies in the US, which led the judge to conclude that Modi not only had a “lack of community ties” in the UK but also large resources at his disposal to try and flee the country. Modi’s attempt to acquire the citizenship of Vanuatu in late 2017 also went against him as the judge said it seemed like he was trying to “move away from India at an important time”. Clare Montgomery, Modi’s barrister, had made a series of offers to try and convince the judge to grant bail, even bringing up his pet dog. “He did have a son at Charterhouse (school in London) who has now gone to a university in the States and as a sign of ageing parents, led Mr Modi to get a dog instead. None of these actions is emblematic of someone setting out to flee the country,” Montgomery had claimed. “It is nonsense to say that he is a flight risk. He does not have a safe haven open to him and he has not travelled or applied for citizenship elsewhere…he only qualifies for leave to remain in this country,” she said. CPS barrister Toby Cadman told the judge that there was a “substantial risk” that the prime accused in the PNB fraud case, “of an amount between USD 1 and 2 billion”, would flee and attempt to interfere with witnesses and evidence. Judge Arbuthnot accepted the Indian government’s arguments, noting the “very unusual” evidence she had seen at this early stage in the case of interference with witnesses and destruction of evidence in the form of mobile phones and a server. The court was told that Modi was the “principal beneficiary” of the fraudulent issuance of letters of undertaking (LoUs) as part of a conspiracy to defraud PNB and then laundering the proceeds of crime.

Nirav Modi intends to appeal for bail in UK High Court

The Bombay High Court Monday refused to grant any relief to diamantaire Nirav Modi's company Camelot Enterprises which had challenged last week's auction by the Income Tax Department of some paintings and artwork belonging to the firm.

The petitioner, Camelot Enterprises, a shell company in which Nirav Modi holds over 99 per cent shares, had approached the high court last week challenging the tax assessment report of the I-T Department, and the department's subsequent notice proposing the recovery proceedings through the said auction.

A bench of Justices Akil Kureshi and Sarang Kotwal, however, rejected the petitioner's prayers for relief, noting among other things, that on the issue of the assessment order, Camelot had directly approached high court instead of filing an appeal before the concerned Appellate Tribunal.

The bench also noted that by not interfering with the auction that was held on March 26 this year, it was not putting the petitioner through an "irreversible situation".

"The petitioner does not claim any particular attachment to any painting or artwork. It hasn't challenged their valuation," the bench said.

"Incase the petitioner succeeds before the Appellate Authority, the amount recovered by the department through the auction can be returned to it with interest," it said.

The petitioner had also argued that the department had "failed" to serve, in a proper manner, notices, both for the assessment of dues and the auction.

It said the department had served notices to two of its directors, Ramesh Assar and Hemant Bhatt.

While Assar had resigned from the company when the notices were received in September last year, Bhatt was in judicial custody at the time.

Instead, Bhatt's son received the notice and told the department that he was incapable of replying to the same.

Therefore, the service of such notices must be held invalid by the court, the petitioner argued.

It further said of the 68 paintings put up for auction by the department, only 19 belonged to the company.

Therefore, the department should not have sold what did not belong to Camelot or to Nirav Modi.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who appeared for the I-T Department, however, argued that Camelot had merely made a statement denying ownership of all the paintings and artwork put up for auction.

It had not provided any legal evidence to prove that it did not own all of the paintings and artwork, Singh said.

Instead, "searches and inquiries conducted by the department" had led to the recovery of a total of 173 paintings and artwork belonging to the company.

Such artwork had been stored in a warehouse in Wadala, and the department had initiated the auction of 68 of such paintings and artwork to recover its tax dues, following valid notice and procedure, Singh said.

The ASG further argued that though the auction had been advertised and notified on its website and in newspapers, no one had come forward to claim ownership of such paintings and artwork which Camelot claimed did not belong to the company.

Therefore, it proved that all paintings and artwork were owned by Camelot, Singh said.

Besides, Singh argued, if Camelot indeed did not own the remaining paintings, then, it had no legal right or locus standi to challenge their sale.

On the issue of service of a notice, the ASG argued that in consonance with the law, the department had sent notices of the tax assessment and the recovery proceedings to the petitioner company and its known directors, Assar and Bhatt, through speed post and emails.

He also said Assar was shown by the petitioner to have resigned from the company a day after the notice for recovery proceedings had been dispatched.

There was also no evidence to prove that Assar had indeed resigned on the said date, he said.

The bench agreed that the petitioner had failed to provide any evidence to prove that it owned only 19 paintings.

"There is no explanation for why the petitioner, who claims to own only 19 paintings, had stored the remaining paintings at the same place at the warehouse, at its own cost. Also, no one has come forward to claim ownership of the remaining paintings. Therefore, the petition can't take shelter under this ground," the bench said.

Last month, a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court had allowed the I-T Department to auction selective artwork -- 68 of the 173 items recovered by the department and the Enforcement Directorate in a search -- allegedly belonging to Nirav Modi, to recover tax arrears.

The ED had provisionally attached the artwork, as part of the investigation into the Rs 13,500-crore Punjab National Bank fraud.

The I-T Department sold 55 of the 68 items and raised around Rs 55 crore through such auction.

The Bombay High Court Monday refused to grant any relief to diamantaire Nirav Modi's company Camelot Enterprises which had challenged last week's auction by the Income Tax Department of some paintings and artwork belonging to the firm.

The Bombay High Court Monday refused to grant any relief to diamantaire Nirav Modi's company Camelot Enterprises which had challenged last week's auction by the Income Tax Department of some paintings and artwork belonging to the firm. The petitioner, Camelot Enterprises, a shell company in which Nirav Modi holds over 99 per cent shares, had approached the high court last week challenging the tax assessment report of the I-T Department, and the department's subsequent notice proposing the recovery proceedings through the said auction. A bench of Justices Akil Kureshi and Sarang Kotwal, however, rejected the petitioner's prayers for relief, noting among other things, that on the issue of the assessment order, Camelot had directly approached high court instead of filing an appeal before the concerned Appellate Tribunal. The bench also noted that by not interfering with the auction that was held on March 26 this year, it was not putting the petitioner through an "irreversible situation". "The petitioner does not claim any particular attachment to any painting or artwork. It hasn't challenged their valuation," the bench said. "Incase the petitioner succeeds before the Appellate Authority, the amount recovered by the department through the auction can be returned to it with interest," it said. The petitioner had also argued that the department had "failed" to serve, in a proper manner, notices, both for the assessment of dues and the auction. It said the department had served notices to two of its directors, Ramesh Assar and Hemant Bhatt. While Assar had resigned from the company when the notices were received in September last year, Bhatt was in judicial custody at the time. Instead, Bhatt's son received the notice and told the department that he was incapable of replying to the same. Therefore, the service of such notices must be held invalid by the court, the petitioner argued. It further said of the 68 paintings put up for auction by the department, only 19 belonged to the company. Therefore, the department should not have sold what did not belong to Camelot or to Nirav Modi. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who appeared for the I-T Department, however, argued that Camelot had merely made a statement denying ownership of all the paintings and artwork put up for auction. It had not provided any legal evidence to prove that it did not own all of the paintings and artwork, Singh said. Instead, "searches and inquiries conducted by the department" had led to the recovery of a total of 173 paintings and artwork belonging to the company. Such artwork had been stored in a warehouse in Wadala, and the department had initiated the auction of 68 of such paintings and artwork to recover its tax dues, following valid notice and procedure, Singh said. The ASG further argued that though the auction had been advertised and notified on its website and in newspapers, no one had come forward to claim ownership of such paintings and artwork which Camelot claimed did not belong to the company. Therefore, it proved that all paintings and artwork were owned by Camelot, Singh said. Besides, Singh argued, if Camelot indeed did not own the remaining paintings, then, it had no legal right or locus standi to challenge their sale. On the issue of service of a notice, the ASG argued that in consonance with the law, the department had sent notices of the tax assessment and the recovery proceedings to the petitioner company and its known directors, Assar and Bhatt, through speed post and emails. He also said Assar was shown by the petitioner to have resigned from the company a day after the notice for recovery proceedings had been dispatched. There was also no evidence to prove that Assar had indeed resigned on the said date, he said. The bench agreed that the petitioner had failed to provide any evidence to prove that it owned only 19 paintings. "There is no explanation for why the petitioner, who claims to own only 19 paintings, had stored the remaining paintings at the same place at the warehouse, at its own cost. Also, no one has come forward to claim ownership of the remaining paintings. Therefore, the petition can't take shelter under this ground," the bench said. Last month, a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court had allowed the I-T Department to auction selective artwork -- 68 of the 173 items recovered by the department and the Enforcement Directorate in a search -- allegedly belonging to Nirav Modi, to recover tax arrears. The ED had provisionally attached the artwork, as part of the investigation into the Rs 13,500-crore Punjab National Bank fraud. The I-T Department sold 55 of the 68 items and raised around Rs 55 crore through such auction.

Mumbai: No High Court relief for Nirav Modi firm in I-T Dept's painting auction

A court in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/maldives-police-investigate-ex-president-yameen-over-suspected-illicit-deals-184006">Maldives</a> on Thursday ordered the release of former president<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/maldives-former-president-abdulla-yameens-top-aide-charged-with-embezzlement-197958"> Abdulla Yameen</a>, saying there was not enough reason to hold him beyond a month under the law.

Yameen was arrested on February 18 to face charges of money laundering stemming from the lease of islands for hotel development during his tenure.

A three-judge bench of the High Court said the prosecution had not provided any reason to extend his remand in custody.

Yameen, who cultivated close ties with China, lost an election in a surprise result last year. His critics accused him of abuse of power and graft.&nbsp;

A court in the Maldives on Thursday ordered the release of former president Abdulla Yameen, saying there was not enough reason to hold him beyond a month under the law.

A court in the Maldives on Thursday ordered the release of former president Abdulla Yameen, saying there was not enough reason to hold him beyond a month under the law. Yameen was arrested on February 18 to face charges of money laundering stemming from the lease of islands for hotel development during his tenure. A three-judge bench of the High Court said the prosecution had not provided any reason to extend his remand in custody. Yameen, who cultivated close ties with China, lost an election in a surprise result last year. His critics accused him of abuse of power and graft.

Maldives high court orders police to release former president Yameen

The Election Commission Thursday informed the Madras High Court it was not possible to postpone the Lok Sabha elections, scheduled for April 18 in Tamil Nadu, in southern districts of the state, as requested through a PIL.

The petition said the polling date clashed with a famous festival in the state&nbsp;that draws lakhs of people and hence would affect polling percentage.

When the Public Interest Litigation came up for hearing before the Madurai bench of the high court, the counsel appearing for the State Chief Electoral Officer told Justices N Kirubakaran and S S Sundar the poll duration could be extended by two hours but postponement was not possible.

The bench said it was not convinced by the EC stand and directed the CEO to file a counter affidavit Friday.

The petitioner, advocate Parthasarathy, sought change of polling date in five southern districts, including Madurai, citing the two-week long "Chithirai festival" of the ancient Goddess Meenakshi Amman temple, which runs from April 8 to April 22 with two key events slated for April 17 and 18.

He said lakhs of people from five southern districts would converge in this temple town for the festival and it would affect the polling percentage in the region.

Earlier, the bench asked the counsel for the CEO whether it would be possible to hold the elections on April 18 when the festival was on.

The counsel submitted the poll duration could be extended by two hours but it was not possible to postpone the election either in the entire state or these southern districts as April 19 was a public holiday.

The Madurai District Collector had Wednesday stated that lakhs of people would visit the city for the key events of the festival here from April 17 to 19.

On April 18, when the car festival will be held, the event would be witnessed by an influx and exit of around two lakh people, he had said.

The Police Commissioner also said three lakh devotees from all over the state would visit the temple city during the three days.

He has also said 59 polling booths were located in the Chitrai Street, through which the Meenakshi Amman temple car would traverse. 
The petitioner said he had sent a representation to the EC through the district collector.&nbsp;

The Election Commission Thursday informed the Madras High Court it was not possible to postpone the Lok Sabha elections, scheduled for April 18 in Tamil Nadu, in southern districts of the state, as requested through a PIL.

The Election Commission Thursday informed the Madras High Court it was not possible to postpone the Lok Sabha elections, scheduled for April 18 in Tamil Nadu, in southern districts of the state, as requested through a PIL. The petition said the polling date clashed with a famous festival in the state that draws lakhs of people and hence would affect polling percentage. When the Public Interest Litigation came up for hearing before the Madurai bench of the high court, the counsel appearing for the State Chief Electoral Officer told Justices N Kirubakaran and S S Sundar the poll duration could be extended by two hours but postponement was not possible. The bench said it was not convinced by the EC stand and directed the CEO to file a counter affidavit Friday. The petitioner, advocate Parthasarathy, sought change of polling date in five southern districts, including Madurai, citing the two-week long "Chithirai festival" of the ancient Goddess Meenakshi Amman temple, which runs from April 8 to April 22 with two key events slated for April 17 and 18. He said lakhs of people from five southern districts would converge in this temple town for the festival and it would affect the polling percentage in the region. Earlier, the bench asked the counsel for the CEO whether it would be possible to hold the elections on April 18 when the festival was on. The counsel submitted the poll duration could be extended by two hours but it was not possible to postpone the election either in the entire state or these southern districts as April 19 was a public holiday. The Madurai District Collector had Wednesday stated that lakhs of people would visit the city for the key events of the festival here from April 17 to 19. On April 18, when the car festival will be held, the event would be witnessed by an influx and exit of around two lakh people, he had said. The Police Commissioner also said three lakh devotees from all over the state would visit the temple city during the three days. He has also said 59 polling booths were located in the Chitrai Street, through which the Meenakshi Amman temple car would traverse. The petitioner said he had sent a representation to the EC through the district collector.

Not possible to change polling date in southern TN: EC to high court

Delhi high court has ordered two scam case accused Shahid Balwa and four others to plant three thousand trees each as they failed to reply to Enforcement Directorate and CBI's appeal against their acquittal. &nbsp;

Justice Najmi Waziri was hearing ED and CBI's appeal against the acquittal of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/opinion-why-the-fuss-over-2g-scam-there-was-zero-loss-after-all-27344">2G scam</a> accused in December 2017.

The Delhi High Court specifies that the indigenous plants need to be three and half years of nursery age and six feet in height. They will also have to carry out plantation drives before March 26, which is the next date of hearing.&nbsp;

However, the respondents will have to meet the&nbsp;Deputy Conservator of Forests on February 15 so that the land can be allotted to them for planting those trees. The accused have not only been directed to maintain the plants till monsoon but also ensure the order's compliance by submitting photographs to court to prove that the plants are in good health.&nbsp;

Justice Waziri emphasised on the need to plant more trees in order to revive 48,000 acres of ridge area in the national capital.

He stated that since morning he passed similar orders to ensure plantation of almost 39,000 trees. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta praised the judge and said, "This is the best way to impose costs."

In the last hearing, the Delhi High Court had granted the persons the last opportunity to file their responses on the agencies plea, warning that no more delays will be allowed.

Last year the Enforcement Directorate had approached Delhi High Court challenging the special court's order acquitting all the accused in the money laundering case arising out of the 2G scam. A day later, the CBI too challenged the acquittal of the accused in the case.&nbsp;

Delhi high court has ordered two scam case accused Shahid Balwa and four others to plant three thousand trees each as they failed to reply to Enforcement Directorate and CBI's appeal against their acquittal.

Delhi high court has ordered two scam case accused Shahid Balwa and four others to plant three thousand trees each as they failed to reply to Enforcement Directorate and CBI's appeal against their acquittal. Justice Najmi Waziri was hearing ED and CBI's appeal against the acquittal of the 2G scam accused in December 2017. The Delhi High Court specifies that the indigenous plants need to be three and half years of nursery age and six feet in height. They will also have to carry out plantation drives before March 26, which is the next date of hearing. However, the respondents will have to meet the Deputy Conservator of Forests on February 15 so that the land can be allotted to them for planting those trees. The accused have not only been directed to maintain the plants till monsoon but also ensure the order's compliance by submitting photographs to court to prove that the plants are in good health. Justice Waziri emphasised on the need to plant more trees in order to revive 48,000 acres of ridge area in the national capital. He stated that since morning he passed similar orders to ensure plantation of almost 39,000 trees. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta praised the judge and said, "This is the best way to impose costs." In the last hearing, the Delhi High Court had granted the persons the last opportunity to file their responses on the agencies plea, warning that no more delays will be allowed. Last year the Enforcement Directorate had approached Delhi High Court challenging the special court's order acquitting all the accused in the money laundering case arising out of the 2G scam. A day later, the CBI too challenged the acquittal of the accused in the case.

Delhi High Court directs 2G case accused to plant 3,000 trees

There are 20 judges per 10 lakh people in the country as compared to 17 in 2014, the Law Ministry said on Wednesday.

In a written reply in Lok Sabha, minister of state for Law P P Chaudhary said, based on the population as per Census 2011 and sanctioned strength of judges in Supreme Court, the 24 high courts, and lower judiciary in 2018, the judge-population ratio in the country works out to be 19.78 judges per million population.

He said the ratio was 17.48 judges per million population in 2014.

The sanctioned strength of judges of high courts has increased from 906 judges in June 2014 to 1079 judges in December, 2018 and the sanctioned strength of Judges of district/subordinate courts has increased from 20,214 in 2014 to 22,833 in 2018.&nbsp;

However, the working strength of judges in high courts is 673 while for the Supreme Court it is 28 against the sanctioned strength of 31.

There are 20 judges per 10 lakh people in the country as compared to 17 in 2014, the Law Ministry said on Wednesday. In a written reply in Lok Sabha, minister of state for Law P P Chaudhary said, based on the population as per Census 2011 and sanctioned strength of judges in Supreme Court, the 24 high courts, and lower judiciary in 2018, the judge-population ratio in the country works out to be 19.

There are 20 judges per 10 lakh people in the country as compared to 17 in 2014, the Law Ministry said on Wednesday. In a written reply in Lok Sabha, minister of state for Law P P Chaudhary said, based on the population as per Census 2011 and sanctioned strength of judges in Supreme Court, the 24 high courts, and lower judiciary in 2018, the judge-population ratio in the country works out to be 19.78 judges per million population. He said the ratio was 17.48 judges per million population in 2014. The sanctioned strength of judges of high courts has increased from 906 judges in June 2014 to 1079 judges in December, 2018 and the sanctioned strength of Judges of district/subordinate courts has increased from 20,214 in 2014 to 22,833 in 2018. However, the working strength of judges in high courts is 673 while for the Supreme Court it is 28 against the sanctioned strength of 31.

There are 20 judges per 10 lakh people in India: Government

The Madras High Court Monday dismissed as withdrawn a plea moved by two accused in the Kodanad heist and murder case seeking to dispense with their appearance before a trial court in connection with the case.

The two accused, K V Sayan and Valayar Manoj, decided to withdraw the plea as Justice Anand Venkatesan refused to accept their contention seeking quashing of summons issued by the Nilgiris trial court.

"When the accused has been enlarged on bail based on the undertaking that they would abide by the conditions imposed by the trial court how can they move such a plea seeking to quash the summon directing their appearance.

"Moreover, the case is in the chargesheet stage, such relief cannot be given at this crucial stage of the case," the judge added.

According to the petitioners, they have appeared before the trial court on more than 20 occasions and demanding any further appearance was unnecessary.

However, refusing to accept their contention, the court said when the trial is on, a journalist was circulating video clippings containing videos of the accused.

"This creates a doubt whether the accused are trying to divert the progress of the case," the court added.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; &nbsp; 
Samuel Mathew, former Tehelka managing editor had on January 11 released a 16-minute video in which the two accused in the case, had allegedly linked chief minister K Palaniswami to the case.

The High Court had on January 23 granted an interim injunction restraining Mathew and six others from making any statement linking Palaniswami to the case.

On April 23, 2017, the security guard of the Kodanad estate, former chief minister J Jayalalithaa's retreat home in Nilgiris district, was murdered in a robbery attempt by a 10-member gang.

It emerged during the probe that Jayalalithaa's former driver C Kanagaraj and Sayan had allegedly plotted the crime.

A total of 10 people were arrested in the case and a charge sheet was also filed.

The Madras High Court Monday dismissed as withdrawn a plea moved by two accused in the Kodanad heist and murder case seeking to dispense with their appearance before a trial court in connection with the case.

The Madras High Court Monday dismissed as withdrawn a plea moved by two accused in the Kodanad heist and murder case seeking to dispense with their appearance before a trial court in connection with the case. The two accused, K V Sayan and Valayar Manoj, decided to withdraw the plea as Justice Anand Venkatesan refused to accept their contention seeking quashing of summons issued by the Nilgiris trial court. "When the accused has been enlarged on bail based on the undertaking that they would abide by the conditions imposed by the trial court how can they move such a plea seeking to quash the summon directing their appearance. "Moreover, the case is in the chargesheet stage, such relief cannot be given at this crucial stage of the case," the judge added. According to the petitioners, they have appeared before the trial court on more than 20 occasions and demanding any further appearance was unnecessary. However, refusing to accept their contention, the court said when the trial is on, a journalist was circulating video clippings containing videos of the accused. "This creates a doubt whether the accused are trying to divert the progress of the case," the court added. Samuel Mathew, former Tehelka managing editor had on January 11 released a 16-minute video in which the two accused in the case, had allegedly linked chief minister K Palaniswami to the case. The High Court had on January 23 granted an interim injunction restraining Mathew and six others from making any statement linking Palaniswami to the case. On April 23, 2017, the security guard of the Kodanad estate, former chief minister J Jayalalithaa's retreat home in Nilgiris district, was murdered in a robbery attempt by a 10-member gang. It emerged during the probe that Jayalalithaa's former driver C Kanagaraj and Sayan had allegedly plotted the crime. A total of 10 people were arrested in the case and a charge sheet was also filed.

Madras High Court dismisses as withdrawn plea by 2 accused in Kodanad case

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/obc-outfit-to-challenge-maratha-reservation-in-court-180304">The Bombay High Court </a>Wednesday sought to know if the Maharashtra government had conducted any study or survey before issuing a notification in 1967 inducting several castes in the OBC category for reservation.

A division bench of Chief Justice N H Patil and Justice N M Jamdar was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by activist B A Sarate challenging the inclusion of several castes in the Other Backward Class (OBC) group.

Sarate's counsel V M Thorat told the HC that out of the 96 castes included in the OBC category, nearly 40 per cent were not even eligible for reservation.

"Inclusion of these castes is unconstitutional. There is a procedure laid down while deciding which caste should be included in a particular category for reservation. The government is not following this procedure," Thorat said.

The bench then sought to know if the government had carried out any study or survey before issuing the Government Resolution (GR) in 1967 inducting a particular caste in the OBC category.

The petitioner has challenged the GR enlisting 180 castes and sub-castes for inclusion in the OBC category, and also another GR, dated March 1994, which increased the OBC quota percentage from 14 per cent to 32 per cent.

The petition claimed that various castes or communities were included in the OBC category without any survey, quantifiable data, investigation to determine the social, educational and economic backwardness.

"There has to be a comprehensive commission to carry out study and collect data. This is what the petition also seeks," Chief Justice Patil said.

The bench then directed that the petition be placed for hearing before an appropriate bench next week.

B A Sarate's counsel V M Thorat told the HC that out of the 96 castes included in the OBC category, nearly 40 per cent were not even eligible for reservation.

The Bombay High Court Wednesday sought to know if the Maharashtra government had conducted any study or survey before issuing a notification in 1967 inducting several castes in the OBC category for reservation. A division bench of Chief Justice N H Patil and Justice N M Jamdar was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by activist B A Sarate challenging the inclusion of several castes in the Other Backward Class (OBC) group. Sarate's counsel V M Thorat told the HC that out of the 96 castes included in the OBC category, nearly 40 per cent were not even eligible for reservation. "Inclusion of these castes is unconstitutional. There is a procedure laid down while deciding which caste should be included in a particular category for reservation. The government is not following this procedure," Thorat said. The bench then sought to know if the government had carried out any study or survey before issuing the Government Resolution (GR) in 1967 inducting a particular caste in the OBC category. The petitioner has challenged the GR enlisting 180 castes and sub-castes for inclusion in the OBC category, and also another GR, dated March 1994, which increased the OBC quota percentage from 14 per cent to 32 per cent. The petition claimed that various castes or communities were included in the OBC category without any survey, quantifiable data, investigation to determine the social, educational and economic backwardness. "There has to be a comprehensive commission to carry out study and collect data. This is what the petition also seeks," Chief Justice Patil said. The bench then directed that the petition be placed for hearing before an appropriate bench next week.

Inclusion of castes in OBC group: Bombay HC seeks Maharashtra response on PIL

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday rejected a petition which sought for permission to offer 'namaz' at the Ayodhya site.

Citing that the petition as filed for "cheap publicity", the court imposed a fine for Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner.

Justices DK Arora and Alok Mathur of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the petition of Al-Rahman Trust, which had requested the court to give permission to offer namaz at the&nbsp;site.

The court directed District Magistrate Faizabad to realise the fine amount if it is not deposited by the Trust.

The hearing in the Ayodhya title case has been adjourned to January.

On September 27, the Supreme Court had rejected the petition of referring the land title case to a larger bench.

The petitions were filed challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the site in Ayodhya into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of UP. The petitions were also filed for reconsidering the court's 1994 verdict in which it observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open".

(With inputs from agencies)

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday rejected a petition which sought for permission to offer 'namaz' at the Ayodhya site. Citing that the petition as filed for "cheap publicity", the court imposed a fine for Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner.

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday rejected a petition which sought for permission to offer 'namaz' at the Ayodhya site. Citing that the petition as filed for "cheap publicity", the court imposed a fine for Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner. Justices DK Arora and Alok Mathur of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the petition of Al-Rahman Trust, which had requested the court to give permission to offer namaz at the site. The court directed District Magistrate Faizabad to realise the fine amount if it is not deposited by the Trust. The hearing in the Ayodhya title case has been adjourned to January. On September 27, the Supreme Court had rejected the petition of referring the land title case to a larger bench. The petitions were filed challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the site in Ayodhya into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of UP. The petitions were also filed for reconsidering the court's 1994 verdict in which it observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open". (With inputs from agencies)

High Court dismisses plea for namaz at Ayodhya site, fines petitioner Rs 5 lakh

High Court allows BJP Rath Yatra in West Bengal

The year 2018 will be looked back in future for some of the remarkable judgements that not only shaped the contemporary period but will also influence the life of the generations to come.

Here are the major judgements passed by the judiciary in 2018.

Section 377-&nbsp; 'Sexual orientation is natural, people have no control over it'.

In a major victory to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community, the Supreme Court on September 6 struck down the colonial era's Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalised gay sex.

Ruling in the favor of the 'third recognised gender' the Supreme court said that sexual orientation is natural and people have no control over it.&nbsp;

The ruling that permitted consensual adult gay sex also said that the law must be interpreted as per the requirement of changing times.

After the judgement, engaging in gay sex in private is no more an offense. The court said that consensual sex between adults in a private space, which is not harmful to women or children cannot be denied as it is a matter of individual choice. The judges which called for the right to equality of the LGBT community also added that society's thinking, social morality cannot violate the rights of even one single individual.

Indu Malhotra who was one of the members in the bench said that society owes an apology to the LGBTQ community. While delivering its verdict the apex court laid emphasis on the fact that though sex, as per the order of nature, was seen as intercourse between man and woman for the purpose of procreation, the fact that it had already recognised a third gender needs to be kept in mind.

&nbsp;

Aadhaar- 'Legislation empowers unprivileged and marginalised section of the society'

On September 26, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act.

The court approved the linking of the Permanent Account Number (PAN) to the Unique Aadhar number while striking down its linkage with bank accounts and mobile number, pension or school admissions.&nbsp;The apex court's judgement came on the grounds that it "struck a fair balance between the right of privacy of the individual with&nbsp;right&nbsp;to life of the same individual as a beneficiary".

The judges said that the operational structure of the Aadhaar project ensures that the architecture of the Aadhaar does not create surveillance. The judgement further said that the legislation has helped in removing leakages and the benefits were now reaching the downtrodden.

The judges said that the legislation empowers unprivileged and marginalised section of the society as it gives them a unique identity and helps them to avail the benefits of welfare schemes.

The bench of judges also asked the government to not to allot Aadhaar to illegal immigrants.

&nbsp;

Adultery- 'Wife is not a property of husband'

On September 28, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which made adultery a punishable&nbsp;offense. Terming the section as unconstitutional the apex court said it deprives women of their sexual autonomy and dignity. The court also held that the "wife was not a property of husband" and that the "husband is neither the master of his wife nor does he have legal sovereignty over her".

It added that the colonial-era provision violated Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty).

The judgement however clarified that adultery would continue to be a ground for divorce.

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code stated that "whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man such intercourse not amounting to the offense of rape, is guilty of the offense of adultery and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years or with a fine or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."

&nbsp;

Ayodhya-&nbsp;&nbsp;'The court has its own priorities'

In a hearing on Ayodhya, the Supreme Court on September 27 rejected the petition of referring the land title case to a larger bench. The petitions were filed challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the site in Ayodhya into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of UP.&nbsp;The petitions were also filed for reconsidering the court's 1994 verdict in which it observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open".

The hearing in the case has now been adjourned to January after the CJI on&nbsp; October 29 rejected the early hearing in the case by saying that '' the court has its own priorities".

&nbsp;

Sabarimala Temple in Kerala-&nbsp; 'Dualism that persists in religion..in matters of devotion has to be abandoned'

In a historic judgement on September 28, the Supreme Court removed the restrictions imposed on women's entry in Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. In its judgement the apex court said, " the attribute of devotion to divinity cannot be subjected to the rigidity and stereotypes of gender... the dualism that persists in religion by glorifying and venerating women as goddesses on one hand and by imposing rigorous sanctions on the other hand, in matters of devotion has to be abandoned".

The judgement was passed by 4-1 ruling. Justice Indu Malhotra who disagreed with the lifting of ban on women's entry to the temple said, " the religious practice of restricting the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years is in pursuance of an 'essential religious practice' and 'notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion by courts'. She further claimed that 'allowing PILs in religious matters would open floodgates to interlopers to question religious beliefs and practices.....the courts should intervene only if there are pernicious, oppressive or social evil like sati".

&nbsp;

Live streaming of court proceedings- 'Will bring in more transparency in the judiciary's work'

The Supreme Court in September ordered the live streaming of court proceedings claiming that it will bring in more transparency in the judiciary's work. The court further asked to "implement the project" and employ the technology required to provide virtual access to live court proceedings. The court also asked that the live telecast of the proceedings should not interfere with the administration of the justice or the dignity and majesty of the court.

&nbsp;

Passive Euthanasia- 'Individuals have right to die with dignity under strict guidelines'

In March 2018 the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia saying that individuals have the right to die with dignity under strict guidelines. The court in its judgement allowed a person to file a "living will" for the withdrawal of life support in case he/she falls in coma. The draft for "living will" can only be filed when the person is in "normal state of health and mind".

&nbsp;

Anti-Sikh riots- 'Mass killing will continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come'

In a historic verdict on the anti-Sikh riots that took place three decades ago and killed over 2700 Sikhs, the High Court on December 17 reversed the acquittal of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar by the trial court and sentenced him to life imprisonment on charges ranging from murder to criminal conspiracy.

Calling the 1984 riots as "crime against humanity" the court said the riots were carried out by people who had "political patronage and were aided by an indifferent law enforcement agency". The judgement added that the mass killing will "continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come".

The court also noted that the accused in the case were brought to justice because of the courage and perseverance of three eyewitnesses.

Questioning the investigation by the police, the court said that the police turned a blind eye to the mob rioting. It further said that the state machinery came to a complete standstill in those two or three days when the rioting mobs took to the streets and indulged in acts of violence.

The year 2018 will be looked back in future for some of the remarkable judgements that not only shaped the contemporary period but will also influence the life of the generations to come.

The year 2018 will be looked back in future for some of the remarkable judgements that not only shaped the contemporary period but will also influence the life of the generations to come. Here are the major judgements passed by the judiciary in 2018. Section 377- 'Sexual orientation is natural, people have no control over it'. In a major victory to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community, the Supreme Court on September 6 struck down the colonial era's Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalised gay sex. Ruling in the favor of the 'third recognised gender' the Supreme court said that sexual orientation is natural and people have no control over it. The ruling that permitted consensual adult gay sex also said that the law must be interpreted as per the requirement of changing times. After the judgement, engaging in gay sex in private is no more an offense. The court said that consensual sex between adults in a private space, which is not harmful to women or children cannot be denied as it is a matter of individual choice. The judges which called for the right to equality of the LGBT community also added that society's thinking, social morality cannot violate the rights of even one single individual. Indu Malhotra who was one of the members in the bench said that society owes an apology to the LGBTQ community. While delivering its verdict the apex court laid emphasis on the fact that though sex, as per the order of nature, was seen as intercourse between man and woman for the purpose of procreation, the fact that it had already recognised a third gender needs to be kept in mind. Aadhaar- 'Legislation empowers unprivileged and marginalised section of the society' On September 26, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act. The court approved the linking of the Permanent Account Number (PAN) to the Unique Aadhar number while striking down its linkage with bank accounts and mobile number, pension or school admissions. The apex court's judgement came on the grounds that it "struck a fair balance between the right of privacy of the individual with right to life of the same individual as a beneficiary". The judges said that the operational structure of the Aadhaar project ensures that the architecture of the Aadhaar does not create surveillance. The judgement further said that the legislation has helped in removing leakages and the benefits were now reaching the downtrodden. The judges said that the legislation empowers unprivileged and marginalised section of the society as it gives them a unique identity and helps them to avail the benefits of welfare schemes. The bench of judges also asked the government to not to allot Aadhaar to illegal immigrants. Adultery- 'Wife is not a property of husband' On September 28, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code which made adultery a punishable offense. Terming the section as unconstitutional the apex court said it deprives women of their sexual autonomy and dignity. The court also held that the "wife was not a property of husband" and that the "husband is neither the master of his wife nor does he have legal sovereignty over her". It added that the colonial-era provision violated Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty). The judgement however clarified that adultery would continue to be a ground for divorce. Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code stated that "whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man such intercourse not amounting to the offense of rape, is guilty of the offense of adultery and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years or with a fine or with both. In such case, the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor." Ayodhya- 'The court has its own priorities' In a hearing on Ayodhya, the Supreme Court on September 27 rejected the petition of referring the land title case to a larger bench. The petitions were filed challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the site in Ayodhya into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of UP. The petitions were also filed for reconsidering the court's 1994 verdict in which it observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open". The hearing in the case has now been adjourned to January after the CJI on October 29 rejected the early hearing in the case by saying that '' the court has its own priorities". Sabarimala Temple in Kerala- 'Dualism that persists in religion..in matters of devotion has to be abandoned' In a historic judgement on September 28, the Supreme Court removed the restrictions imposed on women's entry in Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. In its judgement the apex court said, " the attribute of devotion to divinity cannot be subjected to the rigidity and stereotypes of gender... the dualism that persists in religion by glorifying and venerating women as goddesses on one hand and by imposing rigorous sanctions on the other hand, in matters of devotion has to be abandoned". The judgement was passed by 4-1 ruling. Justice Indu Malhotra who disagreed with the lifting of ban on women's entry to the temple said, " the religious practice of restricting the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 years is in pursuance of an 'essential religious practice' and 'notions of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion by courts'. She further claimed that 'allowing PILs in religious matters would open floodgates to interlopers to question religious beliefs and practices.....the courts should intervene only if there are pernicious, oppressive or social evil like sati". Live streaming of court proceedings- 'Will bring in more transparency in the judiciary's work' The Supreme Court in September ordered the live streaming of court proceedings claiming that it will bring in more transparency in the judiciary's work. The court further asked to "implement the project" and employ the technology required to provide virtual access to live court proceedings. The court also asked that the live telecast of the proceedings should not interfere with the administration of the justice or the dignity and majesty of the court. Passive Euthanasia- 'Individuals have right to die with dignity under strict guidelines' In March 2018 the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia saying that individuals have the right to die with dignity under strict guidelines. The court in its judgement allowed a person to file a "living will" for the withdrawal of life support in case he/she falls in coma. The draft for "living will" can only be filed when the person is in "normal state of health and mind". Anti-Sikh riots- 'Mass killing will continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come' In a historic verdict on the anti-Sikh riots that took place three decades ago and killed over 2700 Sikhs, the High Court on December 17 reversed the acquittal of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar by the trial court and sentenced him to life imprisonment on charges ranging from murder to criminal conspiracy. Calling the 1984 riots as "crime against humanity" the court said the riots were carried out by people who had "political patronage and were aided by an indifferent law enforcement agency". The judgement added that the mass killing will "continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come". The court also noted that the accused in the case were brought to justice because of the courage and perseverance of three eyewitnesses. Questioning the investigation by the police, the court said that the police turned a blind eye to the mob rioting. It further said that the state machinery came to a complete standstill in those two or three days when the rioting mobs took to the streets and indulged in acts of violence.

Major judgements of 2018 by Supreme, High Court

The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed petitions filed by AMMK leader TTV Dinakaran challenging the reassessment of his income tax for 1995-96 and 1996-97 by the department.

Justice S M Subramaniam held that the petitions were devoid of merit and dismissed them.

The I-T department had sought to re-open the income tax returns filed by Dinakaran for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 based on searches made by the Enforcement Department.

The judge said it had been alleged that some of the amounts invested in the foreign countries were not disclosed by Dinakaran and cases were already registered under FERA on the basis of which the assessments were re-opened.

He said it was premature for the court to go into the merits of the case.

The judge directed Dinakaran to approach the I-T authorities for giving explanations about the materials allegedly seized during the searches.

Also, the judge ordered the income tax department to give Dinakaran a chance to explain so that the long-pending litigation was settled.&nbsp;

Dhinakaran had floated the Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam party after being expelled from the AIADMK.

The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed petitions filed by AMMK leader TTV Dinakaran challenging the reassessment of his income tax for 1995-96 and 1996-97 by the department.

The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed petitions filed by AMMK leader TTV Dinakaran challenging the reassessment of his income tax for 1995-96 and 1996-97 by the department. Justice S M Subramaniam held that the petitions were devoid of merit and dismissed them. The I-T department had sought to re-open the income tax returns filed by Dinakaran for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 based on searches made by the Enforcement Department. The judge said it had been alleged that some of the amounts invested in the foreign countries were not disclosed by Dinakaran and cases were already registered under FERA on the basis of which the assessments were re-opened. He said it was premature for the court to go into the merits of the case. The judge directed Dinakaran to approach the I-T authorities for giving explanations about the materials allegedly seized during the searches. Also, the judge ordered the income tax department to give Dinakaran a chance to explain so that the long-pending litigation was settled. Dhinakaran had floated the Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam party after being expelled from the AIADMK.

HC rejects TTV Dinakaran's plea against I-tax re-assessment

The Bombay High Court is likely to take up for hearing a bunch of petitions on the issue of Maratha reservation in Maharashtra on Wednesday. 
Several petitions were filed in 2014 and 2015 after the then Congress-NCP government granted 16 per cent quota in government jobs and education to the Maratha community.

In November 2014, in an interim order, a division bench of the Bombay HC had stayed the then government's decision.

While some of the petitions opposed the government's decision, two petitions had sought immediate implementation of the quota.

Vinod Patil, one of the petitioners, mentioned the matter Monday before a division bench headed by Justice BP Dharmadhikari, seeking an urgent hearing. 
Justice Dharmadhikari said he will hear the petitions on Wednesday.&nbsp;

The Maratha community had held protests across the state earlier this year demanding quota in jobs and educational institutions.

On Sunday, the Maharashtra government approved reservation in government jobs and educational institutes for members of the community.

The state's approval followed the recommendations by the State Backward Class Commission.

While hearing Patil's petition, the court had, however, in August this year directed the commission to submit a report on the progress in its research on whether the community deserved such reservation.

Patil has now sought that the commission's recommendations made to the state be submitted before the court.

He has also urged the court to direct the state to implement the quota for the Maratha community in a time-bound manner.&nbsp;

The Bombay High Court is likely to take up for hearing a bunch of petitions on the issue of Maratha reservation in Maharashtra on Wednesday. Several petitions were filed in 2014 and 2015 after the then Congress-NCP government granted 16 per cent quota in government jobs and education to the Maratha community.

The Bombay High Court is likely to take up for hearing a bunch of petitions on the issue of Maratha reservation in Maharashtra on Wednesday. Several petitions were filed in 2014 and 2015 after the then Congress-NCP government granted 16 per cent quota in government jobs and education to the Maratha community. In November 2014, in an interim order, a division bench of the Bombay HC had stayed the then government's decision. While some of the petitions opposed the government's decision, two petitions had sought immediate implementation of the quota. Vinod Patil, one of the petitioners, mentioned the matter Monday before a division bench headed by Justice BP Dharmadhikari, seeking an urgent hearing. Justice Dharmadhikari said he will hear the petitions on Wednesday. The Maratha community had held protests across the state earlier this year demanding quota in jobs and educational institutions. On Sunday, the Maharashtra government approved reservation in government jobs and educational institutes for members of the community. The state's approval followed the recommendations by the State Backward Class Commission. While hearing Patil's petition, the court had, however, in August this year directed the commission to submit a report on the progress in its research on whether the community deserved such reservation. Patil has now sought that the commission's recommendations made to the state be submitted before the court. He has also urged the court to direct the state to implement the quota for the Maratha community in a time-bound manner.

Maratha quota: Bombay HC likely to hear petitions on Wednesday

The centre appointed 34 judges to six high courts on Saturday, according to media reports.

28 judges were appointed in Allahabad high court, in which 15 were lawyers and 13 judicial officers.

Allahabad HC had only 89 judges and with additional 28 the number goes to 117.

Two lawyers were appointed as judges in Gauhati high court, one of whom became the fist from a tribal community of Arunachal.

One judge was appointed to each high courts of Meghalaya, Delhi, Orissa and Madras.

Other high courts with vacancies are Telangana and Arunachal Pradesh HC, Delhi HC and Calcutta HC.

In 2017, the centre had processed the SC collegium's recommendations and appointed 117 as high court judges.

Over 43 lakh cases are pending in India.

The centre appointed 34 judges to six high courts on Saturday, according to media reports. 28 judges were appointed in Allahabad high court, in which 15 were lawyers and 13 judicial officers.

The centre appointed 34 judges to six high courts on Saturday, according to media reports. 28 judges were appointed in Allahabad high court, in which 15 were lawyers and 13 judicial officers. Allahabad HC had only 89 judges and with additional 28 the number goes to 117. Two lawyers were appointed as judges in Gauhati high court, one of whom became the fist from a tribal community of Arunachal. One judge was appointed to each high courts of Meghalaya, Delhi, Orissa and Madras. Other high courts with vacancies are Telangana and Arunachal Pradesh HC, Delhi HC and Calcutta HC. In 2017, the centre had processed the SC collegium's recommendations and appointed 117 as high court judges. Over 43 lakh cases are pending in India.

Centre appoints 34 judges to six High Courts

Pakistan's Supreme Court Friday ordered the authorities to restrain from acquitting 68 terrorists convicted by military courts on terrorism charges.

The release of the convicts was earlier ordered by the Peshawar High Court (PHC).

All 68 were sentenced by the military courts in different cases but they challenged the conviction in the PHC which on October 18 overturned the sentence and ordered the authorities to set them free.

The acquittal order was challenged by the Defence Ministry on behalf of army in the Supreme Court, where a two-member bench headed by Justice Azmat Saeed heard the case.

Additional Attorney General Sajid Ilyas Bhatti told the apex court that the high court failed to take into account the accurate review of the facts. 
He argued that all convicts were involved in acts of militancy and were convicted by the military courts after due process of law.

The court after hearing argument ordered jail authorities that convicts be released until final adjudication of the appeal.

The court also issued notices to the parties and adjourned the case indefinitely.

The military courts were set up for speedy trial of militants after they attacked an Army-run school in Peshawar in December 2014 and killed around 150 people, mostly students.

The military courts work in secrecy and their decision are made public when endorsed by the Army Chief.

However, details like venue and dates of trial and officials involved are withheld due to security reasons.

Pakistan's Supreme Court Friday ordered the authorities to restrain from acquitting 68 terrorists convicted by military courts on terrorism charges. The release of the convicts was earlier ordered by the Peshawar High Court (PHC).

Pakistan's Supreme Court Friday ordered the authorities to restrain from acquitting 68 terrorists convicted by military courts on terrorism charges. The release of the convicts was earlier ordered by the Peshawar High Court (PHC). All 68 were sentenced by the military courts in different cases but they challenged the conviction in the PHC which on October 18 overturned the sentence and ordered the authorities to set them free. The acquittal order was challenged by the Defence Ministry on behalf of army in the Supreme Court, where a two-member bench headed by Justice Azmat Saeed heard the case. Additional Attorney General Sajid Ilyas Bhatti told the apex court that the high court failed to take into account the accurate review of the facts. He argued that all convicts were involved in acts of militancy and were convicted by the military courts after due process of law. The court after hearing argument ordered jail authorities that convicts be released until final adjudication of the appeal. The court also issued notices to the parties and adjourned the case indefinitely. The military courts were set up for speedy trial of militants after they attacked an Army-run school in Peshawar in December 2014 and killed around 150 people, mostly students. The military courts work in secrecy and their decision are made public when endorsed by the Army Chief. However, details like venue and dates of trial and officials involved are withheld due to security reasons.

Pak Supreme Court stays high court order to acquit 68 terrorists convicted by military courts 

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Chief Justices to High Courts of Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Guwahati, Calcutta, and Bombay.

The resolution of recommending Chief Justices to five High Courts was passed by the Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph on October 9.

Justice NH Patil, the senior-most judge and also the acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, has been recommended for the appointment as Chief Justice, the post which has been lying vacant since December 2017.

"It is made clear that the Collegium while making the recommendation is conscious of the fact that Justice N.H. Patil hails from Bombay High Court and is due to retire in April 2019. In this connection, the Collegium has invoked the provision of the Memorandum of Procedure which provides for elevation of a puisne Judge as Chief Justice in his own High Court if he has one year or less to retire," read the resolution.

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice DK Gupta as Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. Justice Gupta, the senior-most judge of the High Court and present acting Chief Justice, is due to retire in December 2018.

Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, the senior-most judge of the Hyderabad High Court, has been recommended for the appointment to the post of next Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.

The post of Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court has been lying vacant since the elevation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court this year.Justice Ranganathan will retire in January 2019.

The apex court Collegium has made the recommendation of Justice Vijai Kumar Bist, the senior-most judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, for the appointment of next Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court.

Recommending the name of Justice Bist for Sikkim High Court Chief Justice, the Collegium took into consideration the fact that there has been no Chief Justice from the

Uttarakhand High Court since the elevation of Justice PC Pant to the Supreme Court in 2014.

For Guwahati High Court, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended Justice AS Bopanna, the senior judge from the Karnataka High Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Chief Justices to High Courts of Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Guwahati, Calcutta, and Bombay. The resolution of recommending Chief Justices to five High Courts was passed by the Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph on October 9.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Chief Justices to High Courts of Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Guwahati, Calcutta, and Bombay. The resolution of recommending Chief Justices to five High Courts was passed by the Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph on October 9. Justice NH Patil, the senior-most judge and also the acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, has been recommended for the appointment as Chief Justice, the post which has been lying vacant since December 2017. "It is made clear that the Collegium while making the recommendation is conscious of the fact that Justice N.H. Patil hails from Bombay High Court and is due to retire in April 2019. In this connection, the Collegium has invoked the provision of the Memorandum of Procedure which provides for elevation of a puisne Judge as Chief Justice in his own High Court if he has one year or less to retire," read the resolution. The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice DK Gupta as Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. Justice Gupta, the senior-most judge of the High Court and present acting Chief Justice, is due to retire in December 2018. Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, the senior-most judge of the Hyderabad High Court, has been recommended for the appointment to the post of next Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. The post of Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court has been lying vacant since the elevation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court this year.Justice Ranganathan will retire in January 2019. The apex court Collegium has made the recommendation of Justice Vijai Kumar Bist, the senior-most judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, for the appointment of next Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court. Recommending the name of Justice Bist for Sikkim High Court Chief Justice, the Collegium took into consideration the fact that there has been no Chief Justice from the Uttarakhand High Court since the elevation of Justice PC Pant to the Supreme Court in 2014. For Guwahati High Court, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended Justice AS Bopanna, the senior judge from the Karnataka High Court.

Supreme Court Collegium recommends chief justices to 5 high courts

The High Court Division on Tuesday will pass orders on three petitions, filed by former Bangladesh Prime Minister and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia.

The High Court bench of Justice AKM Asaduzzaman and Justice JBM Hassan fixed the date after concluding the hearing on the petitions, as reported by the Daily Star.

Advocate Khandker Mahbub Hossain placed arguments before the HC on behalf of Khaleda Zia, while Attorney General Mahbubey Alam opposed the bail petitions.

Of the three cases, was about vandalising vehicles on January 25, 2015, and the other was for killing eight people and injuring 25-26 by setting fire on a passenger bus in Chauddagram on February 2 the same year.

The third case was filed by Raihan Faruki Imam with a Narail court on September 24, 2015, against Khaleda for making a statement about Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the number of freedom fighters.

Khaleda had said that Rahman did not seek country's independence instead he wanted to be Pakistan's Prime Minister.

Khaleda has also been convicted for several other cases included Zia Orphanage graft case, undermining the map and flag of Bangladesh, which also includes the distortion of the 1971 Liberation War in an event, and celebrating her birthday with false information.&nbsp

Khaleda had said that Rahman did not seek country's independence instead he wanted to be Pakistan's Prime Minister

The High Court Division on Tuesday will pass orders on three petitions, filed by former Bangladesh Prime Minister and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia. The High Court bench of Justice AKM Asaduzzaman and Justice JBM Hassan fixed the date after concluding the hearing on the petitions, as reported by the Daily Star. Advocate Khandker Mahbub Hossain placed arguments before the HC on behalf of Khaleda Zia, while Attorney General Mahbubey Alam opposed the bail petitions. Of the three cases, was about vandalising vehicles on January 25, 2015, and the other was for killing eight people and injuring 25-26 by setting fire on a passenger bus in Chauddagram on February 2 the same year. The third case was filed by Raihan Faruki Imam with a Narail court on September 24, 2015, against Khaleda for making a statement about Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the number of freedom fighters. Khaleda had said that Rahman did not seek country's independence instead he wanted to be Pakistan's Prime Minister. Khaleda has also been convicted for several other cases included Zia Orphanage graft case, undermining the map and flag of Bangladesh, which also includes the distortion of the 1971 Liberation War in an event, and celebrating her birthday with false information.

Bangladesh: High Court to pass orders on Khaleda Zia's petition

The CBI on Friday told the Delhi High Court that the 2G spectrum case allegedly involving former telecom minister A Raja, DMK lawmaker Kanimozhi and others was "a case of monumental loss and a shame to the nation". 
 
Challenging the acquittal of the DMK leaders and others, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justice SP Garg that huge loss to the public exchequer had been caused due to the spectrum allocation scam. 
 
"This is a case of monumental loss and a shame to the nation," Mr Mehta said. 
 
The ASG also opposed the plea of the accused seeking more time to file their response saying "delaying tactics" were being adopted by them to prolong the proceedings. 
 
The high court has now posted the CBI's plea challenging their acquittal by a special court in the 2G spectrum case for August 2 while the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) plea has been fixed for August 6. 
 
During the hearing, lawyers for some of the accused in the case said that a number of charge sheets have been filed in these cases and they should be heard separately. 
 
The high court had earlier issued notices to Mr Raja, Ms Kanimozhi and others on the CBI's plea challenging their acquittal by a special court in the 2G spectrum case.

A similar order was passed by Justice Garg on the plea of the ED challenging their acquittal in the money laundering case arising out of the 2G scam case. 
 
The court had also allowed the interim plea of the ED for maintaining status quo with regard to the properties worth around&nbspRs.&nbsp223 crore which the agency had attached in the money laundering case. 
 
The ED did not want the properties to be released from attachment, a consequence of the acquittal in the money laundering case, saying that third party rights might be created in them. 
 
On March 19, the ED moved the high court challenging the special court's order acquitting all the accused in the money laundering case arising out of the 2G scam. 
 
Yesterday, the CBI too challenged in the high court the acquittal of the accused in the case. 
 
A special court on December 21 last year had acquitted Mr Raja, Ms Kanimozhi and others in the CBI and ED cases. 
 
Besides Mr Raja and Ms Kanimozhi, the special court had acquitted 17 others, including DMK chief M Karunanidhi's wife Dayalu Ammal, Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka of STPL, Asif Balwa and Rajiv Aggarwal of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd, film producer Karim Morani, P Amirtham and Sharad Kumar, Director of Kalaignar TV in the ED case. 
 
The ED, in its charge sheet, had alleged that&nbspRs.&nbsp200 crore was paid by Swan Telecom (P) Ltd (STPL) promoters to DMK-run Kalaignar TV. 
 
On the same day, the trial court had acquitted Mr Raja, Ms Kanimozhi and 15 others, including former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura, Raja's erstwhile private secretary R K Chandolia, Swan Telecom promoters Shahid Usman Balwa and Vinod Goenka, Unitech Ltd MD Sanjay Chandra and three top executives of Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (RADAG) -- Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair, in the CBI's 2G case. 
 
The CBI had alleged that there was a loss of&nbspRs.&nbsp30,984 crore to the exchequer in allocation of licences for the 2G spectrum which were scrapped by the top court on February 2, 2012. 
 
Special Judge O P Saini, however, had held that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to prove the charges. 
 
The special court, which was set up on March 14, 2011 for hearing 2G cases exclusively, had also acquitted Essar Group promoters Ravi Kant Ruia and Anshuman Ruia and six others in a separate case arising out of the 2G scam probe. 
 
The first case, prosecuted by CBI, had 17 accused, while the second matter, pursued by ED, had 19 undertrials. The third one had eight accused including Essar promoters.

In the CBI case, Raja, Kanimozhi and 15 others were tried under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act dealing with offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery among others.

Challenging the acquittal of the DMK leaders and others, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justice SP Garg that huge loss to the public exchequer had been caused due to the spectrum allocation scam

The CBI on Friday told the Delhi High Court that the 2G spectrum case allegedly involving former telecom minister A Raja, DMK lawmaker Kanimozhi and others was "a case of monumental loss and a shame to the nation". Challenging the acquittal of the DMK leaders and others, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justice SP Garg that huge loss to the public exchequer had been caused due to the spectrum allocation scam. "This is a case of monumental loss and a shame to the nation," Mr Mehta said. The ASG also opposed the plea of the accused seeking more time to file their response saying "delaying tactics" were being adopted by them to prolong the proceedings. The high court has now posted the CBI's plea challenging their acquittal by a special court in the 2G spectrum case for August 2 while the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) plea has been fixed for August 6. During the hearing, lawyers for some of the accused in the case said that a number of charge sheets have been filed in these cases and they should be heard separately. The high court had earlier issued notices to Mr Raja, Ms Kanimozhi and others on the CBI's plea challenging their acquittal by a special court in the 2G spectrum case. A similar order was passed by Justice Garg on the plea of the ED challenging their acquittal in the money laundering case arising out of the 2G scam case. The court had also allowed the interim plea of the ED for maintaining status quo with regard to the properties worth around&nbspRs.&nbsp223 crore which the agency had attached in the money laundering case. The ED did not want the properties to be released from attachment, a consequence of the acquittal in the money laundering case, saying that third party rights might be created in them. On March 19, the ED moved the high court challenging the special court's order acquitting all the accused in the money laundering case arising out of the 2G scam. Yesterday, the CBI too challenged in the high court the acquittal of the accused in the case. A special court on December 21 last year had acquitted Mr Raja, Ms Kanimozhi and others in the CBI and ED cases. Besides Mr Raja and Ms Kanimozhi, the special court had acquitted 17 others, including DMK chief M Karunanidhi's wife Dayalu Ammal, Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka of STPL, Asif Balwa and Rajiv Aggarwal of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd, film producer Karim Morani, P Amirtham and Sharad Kumar, Director of Kalaignar TV in the ED case. The ED, in its charge sheet, had alleged that&nbspRs.&nbsp200 crore was paid by Swan Telecom (P) Ltd (STPL) promoters to DMK-run Kalaignar TV. On the same day, the trial court had acquitted Mr Raja, Ms Kanimozhi and 15 others, including former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura, Raja's erstwhile private secretary R K Chandolia, Swan Telecom promoters Shahid Usman Balwa and Vinod Goenka, Unitech Ltd MD Sanjay Chandra and three top executives of Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (RADAG) -- Gautam Doshi, Surendra Pipara and Hari Nair, in the CBI's 2G case. The CBI had alleged that there was a loss of&nbspRs.&nbsp30,984 crore to the exchequer in allocation of licences for the 2G spectrum which were scrapped by the top court on February 2, 2012. Special Judge O P Saini, however, had held that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to prove the charges. The special court, which was set up on March 14, 2011 for hearing 2G cases exclusively, had also acquitted Essar Group promoters Ravi Kant Ruia and Anshuman Ruia and six others in a separate case arising out of the 2G scam probe. The first case, prosecuted by CBI, had 17 accused, while the second matter, pursued by ED, had 19 undertrials. The third one had eight accused including Essar promoters. In the CBI case, Raja, Kanimozhi and 15 others were tried under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act dealing with offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery among others.

2G Case A Shame To Nation: CBI Tells Delhi High Court

A Srinagar-bound Air India flight from Delhi returned shortly after taking off today morning due to a technical issue. &nbsp; &nbsp;

The AI-825 flight was carrying 180 passengers and took at 10.15 AM. The Air India flight returned to Delhi Airport at 10.55 AM.

The exact cause of the technical issue is being ascertained, an Air India spokesperson shared.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UPDATE?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#UPDATE</a> An Air India Flight AI-825 Delhi to Srinagar returned to Delhi airport after developing a technical snag. The flight landed safely and had 180 passengers on board. <a href="https://t.co/NUNaV7BRST">https://t.co/NUNaV7BRST</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/990470939010879489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 29, 2018</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>

Meanwhile, The Delhi High Court has asked the national civil aviation regulator, DGCA. to communicate the latest situation regarding air safety. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation has been asked by the Delhi High Court to share the latest with respect to the ongoing probe into recent aircraft accidents and recruitment of flight operations inspectors.

A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar asked for the details after the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) claimed that it has been following all precautions to ensure flight safety in the country. The matter will be heard again on August 2.

The court's response came after hearing a PIL that alleged private airlines of violating and circumventing mandatory provisions for air safety issued by the DGCA.

Petitioner Alok Kumar's plea also slammed the aviation watchdog for having has no mechanism in place to effectively and thoroughly check the non-compliance and blatant violation of the provisions.

The DGCA has refused all the allegations stating that it has safety oversight and surveillance programmes for airworthiness management and aircraft maintenance. The court was told that all civil aviation planes in operation comply with the aircraft maintenance programme.

The aviation regulator communicated having no shortage of flight operation inspectors. However, Kumar's plea states 72 vacant flight operation inspector posts in the DGCA.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

The exact cause of the technical issue is being ascertained

A Srinagar-bound Air India flight from Delhi returned shortly after taking off today morning due to a technical issue. The AI-825 flight was carrying 180 passengers and took at 10.15 AM. The Air India flight returned to Delhi Airport at 10.55 AM. The exact cause of the technical issue is being ascertained, an Air India spokesperson shared. #UPDATE An Air India Flight AI-825 Delhi to Srinagar returned to Delhi airport after developing a technical snag. The flight landed safely and had 180 passengers on board. https://t.co/NUNaV7BRST — ANI (@ANI) April 29, 2018 × Meanwhile, The Delhi High Court has asked the national civil aviation regulator, DGCA. to communicate the latest situation regarding air safety. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation has been asked by the Delhi High Court to share the latest with respect to the ongoing probe into recent aircraft accidents and recruitment of flight operations inspectors. A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar asked for the details after the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) claimed that it has been following all precautions to ensure flight safety in the country. The matter will be heard again on August 2. The court's response came after hearing a PIL that alleged private airlines of violating and circumventing mandatory provisions for air safety issued by the DGCA. Petitioner Alok Kumar's plea also slammed the aviation watchdog for having has no mechanism in place to effectively and thoroughly check the non-compliance and blatant violation of the provisions. The DGCA has refused all the allegations stating that it has safety oversight and surveillance programmes for airworthiness management and aircraft maintenance. The court was told that all civil aviation planes in operation comply with the aircraft maintenance programme. The aviation regulator communicated having no shortage of flight operation inspectors. However, Kumar's plea states 72 vacant flight operation inspector posts in the DGCA. (With inputs from agencies)

Air India Srinagar flight returns to Delhi due to technical fault; HC questions DGCA on air safety

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed a top mobile company official to be present before it in a contempt case filed by former Indian cricket team skipper MS Dhoni.

In a complaint filed, Dhoni alleged&nbspthat the firm was using his name by projecting him as its brand ambassador despite the termination of the agreement between them way back in December 2012.

Justice V Kameswar Rao asked the CMD of Maxx Mobilink Ltd, Ajjay Agarwal, to appear in the court on October 12.&nbsp

The court was hearing a petition filed by Dhoni seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the company's CMD for defying its November 17, 2014 direction asking Maxx Mobilink to refrain from selling any products&nbspusing the name of the cricketer in commercials.

During the hearing, the court asked Dhoni's counsel what prejudice was caused to him.

His counsel J S Lamba said the company was using the cricketer's name without paying him. He also said that the court had on April 21, 2016 directed the contemnor to appear before it.

The court had in January last year pulled up the top official of the firm after taking note of the plea of the former captain that its orders have been defied by them.

It had also passed a similar order on April 21, 2016 asking Agarwal to inform about the steps taken to comply with the 2014 direction asking the firm to refrain from selling any product, claiming to be endorsed by Dhoni.

The firm's counsel had said it had never indulged in misusing Dhoni's name to take any advantage.

Dhoni had an endorsement agreement with the company which had expired in December 2012.

Earlier, the court had asked Maxx to give details of the steps taken by it to remove Dhoni's name and photograph from social media sites including its website and Facebook.

The November 2014 direction was passed on a plea by Dhoni and Rhiti Sports, alleging that Maxx Mobilink had not paid dues worth crores of rupees which was agreed upon for using the cricketer's name on their products.

Dhoni's counsel had said the endorsement agreement between him and the company had expired in December 2012, but Maxx was still using his name to sell its products and not paying him the dues.

The cricketer, in his contempt plea, has also sought a direction to seize all the products/mobile handsets and such other articles where his name and image is being used to sell and promote these products.&nbsp

The court asked Dhoni's counsel what prejudice was caused to him.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed a top mobile company official to be present before it in a contempt case filed by former Indian cricket team skipper MS Dhoni. In a complaint filed, Dhoni alleged&nbspthat the firm was using his name by projecting him as its brand ambassador despite the termination of the agreement between them way back in December 2012. Justice V Kameswar Rao asked the CMD of Maxx Mobilink Ltd, Ajjay Agarwal, to appear in the court on October 12. The court was hearing a petition filed by Dhoni seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the company's CMD for defying its November 17, 2014 direction asking Maxx Mobilink to refrain from selling any products&nbspusing the name of the cricketer in commercials. During the hearing, the court asked Dhoni's counsel what prejudice was caused to him. His counsel J S Lamba said the company was using the cricketer's name without paying him. He also said that the court had on April 21, 2016 directed the contemnor to appear before it. The court had in January last year pulled up the top official of the firm after taking note of the plea of the former captain that its orders have been defied by them. It had also passed a similar order on April 21, 2016 asking Agarwal to inform about the steps taken to comply with the 2014 direction asking the firm to refrain from selling any product, claiming to be endorsed by Dhoni. The firm's counsel had said it had never indulged in misusing Dhoni's name to take any advantage. Dhoni had an endorsement agreement with the company which had expired in December 2012. Earlier, the court had asked Maxx to give details of the steps taken by it to remove Dhoni's name and photograph from social media sites including its website and Facebook. The November 2014 direction was passed on a plea by Dhoni and Rhiti Sports, alleging that Maxx Mobilink had not paid dues worth crores of rupees which was agreed upon for using the cricketer's name on their products. Dhoni's counsel had said the endorsement agreement between him and the company had expired in December 2012, but Maxx was still using his name to sell its products and not paying him the dues. The cricketer, in his contempt plea, has also sought a direction to seize all the products/mobile handsets and such other articles where his name and image is being used to sell and promote these products.

HC asks mobile co. CMD to appear in Dhoni's contempt plea

The Delhi High Court today directed diamantaire Nirav Modi's company, Firestar Diamond, to ask him to return to India, dubbing him a "fugitive".

A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta passed the direction after the company's lawyer said relief should not be denied to it on a technicality that Firestar International had authorised the filing of petitions by its subsidiary, Firestar Diamond.

"If we should not stress upon the technicality. Then ask Mr Modi to come back. Ask him to come back," the bench told advocate Vijay Aggarwal, who appeared for Firestar Diamond and Firestar International.

Expressing "serious concern" over Modi's statement to investigative agencies that he will not submit to their jurisdiction, the court said "we are dealing with a fugitive here according to them (ED). A fugitive from justice stands on a different footing."

Agarwal, however, said that the media has termed Modi as a fugitive and only non-bailable warrants have been issued against him and no order proclaiming him as an absconder has been passed.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has conducted searches and seizure of the company and its assets in connection with a money laundering case related to the over Rs 11,000 crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case.

Agarwal urged the bench to either stay the ED proceedings against the two companies or direct the agency to provide the reasons for its search and seizure action.

The ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General Sandeep Sethi and central government standing counsel Amit Mahajan, raised several objections, including that of jurisdiction, against the maintainability of the pleas.

The agency contended that no relief should be granted to the two companies under the discretionary power of the court as Modi was a "fugitive from justice", was "absconding" and not joining the investigation.

It showed the shareholding pattern of the two companies and several others in which Modi has stake and argued that he was the person behind all of them.

The court took note of the shareholding pattern and said it was "intricate" and "speaks for itself".

The bench also said there was merit in ED's contention that while the "driving force behind the companies" (Modi) was not submitting to the agency's jurisdiction, his companies cannot be given any discretionary relief.

The observations came during the hearing on the pleas of Modi's and Mehul Choksi's firms challenging the ED proceedings against them as well as various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court listed all the matters for hearing on May 3.

It asked the ED to file its response to the pleas moved by Choksi's Gitanjali Gems and Modi's Firestar International, the parent company of Firestar Diamonds which had earlier moved the high court against the ED proceedings.

During the hearing, Agarwal argued that the agency was making contradictory submissions. He said, on one hand, it was saying Modi was not separate from the two companies, on the other, it was saying that the Board of Firestar International cannot authorise filing of petitions by Firestar Diamond as they were different entities.

The court, however, observed that in view of the board resolution by Firestar International, the petitions of Firestar Diamond were bad from inception and added that the conduct of Modi was also essential to consider grant of discretionary relief.

With regard to the plea by Choksi's Gitanjali Gems, which has challenged the alleged illegal seizure of documents and articles by the probe agency, the bench said its shareholding to has to be seen to ascertain who holds the controlling interest.

"The bottom line is that under Article 226 for grant of discretionary relief, we may want to examine to whom the benefit will endure. We have to see who will be benefitted," the court said.

The three companies in their respective pleas have sought directions to ED to supply them copies of search warrants, the ECIR registered by the agency on the basis of which searches were made in their premises and the entire documentation and details of places where the assets have been kept for safe keeping.

They have also challenged the constitutionality of various provisions of the PMLA, including Section 17 which gives powers of search and seizure and Section 20 relating to retention of property.

Billionaire Nirav Modi, his uncle Mehul Choksi and others are being investigated by multiple probe agencies after the scam recently came to light following a complaint by the PNB that they had allegedly cheated the nationalised bank to the tune of Rs

11,400 crore, with the purported involvement of a few employees of the bank.

The ED has registered the money laundering case against Nirav Modi, his firms and others on the basis of a CBI FIR.

The CBI and the ED have registered FIRs to probe the case and intensified the crackdown on Nirav Modi and Choksi with the ED seizing jewellery and assets worth thousands of crores of rupees, the I-T department attaching various properties, and the CBI grilling several senior executives of his company.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has conducted searches and seizure of the company and its assets

The Delhi High Court today directed diamantaire Nirav Modi's company, Firestar Diamond, to ask him to return to India, dubbing him a "fugitive". A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta passed the direction after the company's lawyer said relief should not be denied to it on a technicality that Firestar International had authorised the filing of petitions by its subsidiary, Firestar Diamond. "If we should not stress upon the technicality. Then ask Mr Modi to come back. Ask him to come back," the bench told advocate Vijay Aggarwal, who appeared for Firestar Diamond and Firestar International. Expressing "serious concern" over Modi's statement to investigative agencies that he will not submit to their jurisdiction, the court said "we are dealing with a fugitive here according to them (ED). A fugitive from justice stands on a different footing." Agarwal, however, said that the media has termed Modi as a fugitive and only non-bailable warrants have been issued against him and no order proclaiming him as an absconder has been passed. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has conducted searches and seizure of the company and its assets in connection with a money laundering case related to the over Rs 11,000 crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case. Agarwal urged the bench to either stay the ED proceedings against the two companies or direct the agency to provide the reasons for its search and seizure action. The ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General Sandeep Sethi and central government standing counsel Amit Mahajan, raised several objections, including that of jurisdiction, against the maintainability of the pleas. The agency contended that no relief should be granted to the two companies under the discretionary power of the court as Modi was a "fugitive from justice", was "absconding" and not joining the investigation. It showed the shareholding pattern of the two companies and several others in which Modi has stake and argued that he was the person behind all of them. The court took note of the shareholding pattern and said it was "intricate" and "speaks for itself". The bench also said there was merit in ED's contention that while the "driving force behind the companies" (Modi) was not submitting to the agency's jurisdiction, his companies cannot be given any discretionary relief. The observations came during the hearing on the pleas of Modi's and Mehul Choksi's firms challenging the ED proceedings against them as well as various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court listed all the matters for hearing on May 3. It asked the ED to file its response to the pleas moved by Choksi's Gitanjali Gems and Modi's Firestar International, the parent company of Firestar Diamonds which had earlier moved the high court against the ED proceedings. During the hearing, Agarwal argued that the agency was making contradictory submissions. He said, on one hand, it was saying Modi was not separate from the two companies, on the other, it was saying that the Board of Firestar International cannot authorise filing of petitions by Firestar Diamond as they were different entities. The court, however, observed that in view of the board resolution by Firestar International, the petitions of Firestar Diamond were bad from inception and added that the conduct of Modi was also essential to consider grant of discretionary relief. With regard to the plea by Choksi's Gitanjali Gems, which has challenged the alleged illegal seizure of documents and articles by the probe agency, the bench said its shareholding to has to be seen to ascertain who holds the controlling interest. "The bottom line is that under Article 226 for grant of discretionary relief, we may want to examine to whom the benefit will endure. We have to see who will be benefitted," the court said. The three companies in their respective pleas have sought directions to ED to supply them copies of search warrants, the ECIR registered by the agency on the basis of which searches were made in their premises and the entire documentation and details of places where the assets have been kept for safe keeping. They have also challenged the constitutionality of various provisions of the PMLA, including Section 17 which gives powers of search and seizure and Section 20 relating to retention of property. Billionaire Nirav Modi, his uncle Mehul Choksi and others are being investigated by multiple probe agencies after the scam recently came to light following a complaint by the PNB that they had allegedly cheated the nationalised bank to the tune of Rs 11,400 crore, with the purported involvement of a few employees of the bank. The ED has registered the money laundering case against Nirav Modi, his firms and others on the basis of a CBI FIR. The CBI and the ED have registered FIRs to probe the case and intensified the crackdown on Nirav Modi and Choksi with the ED seizing jewellery and assets worth thousands of crores of rupees, the I-T department attaching various properties, and the CBI grilling several senior executives of his company.

High Court asks Nirav Modi's company to tell him to come back

high-court

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