A London high court ruled on Wednesday (Mar&nbsp;28) that the luxury apartment of fugitive Indian diamond merchant Nirav Modi in London, valued at a minimum of GBP 5.25 million, can be sold.

The decision came after a remote hearing attended by Modi, who is currently in prison in the UK.

India's Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that the apartment's assets stem from a massive fraud on the Punjab National Bank (PNB), for which Nirav Modi faces extradition proceedings.

Judge Master James Brightwell accepted the sale of the property for GBP 5.25 million or more, ensuring the proceeds are held securely after clearing the trust's liabilities. "I am satisfied that it is a reasonable decision to allow for the property to be sold for GBP 5.25 million or above," Master Brightwell said.

The case involves Trident Trust Company (Singapore) Pte Limited seeking to sell the apartment in Marylebone, with Nirav Modi's sister and family named as beneficiaries of the trust.

Barrister Harish Salve, representing the ED, ensured safeguards were in place to protect the interests of potential beneficiaries and prevent a rushed sale of the asset.

Nirav Modi claims to be the "true settler" of the trust, asserting his right to the proceeds from the sale based on his alleged contribution to its purchase.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/uk-delegations-face-pressure-from-india-on-extradition-of-fugitives-vijay-mallya-and-nirav-modi-614014">UK delegations face pressure from India on extradition of fugitives Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi</a>

Nirav Modi participated in the proceedings remotely from prison, expressing concerns about potential buyers linked to ongoing investigations by the ED.

Despite losing his extradition battle in 2022, Nirav Modi faces further litigation, including pending legal costs amounting to GBP 150,247.

There are three criminal cases against Nirav Modi in India related to fraud at the PNB bank, which caused losses of over GBP 700 million.

These cases include an ED case involving the alleged laundering of the proceeds of that fraud, and a third set of criminal proceedings involving alleged interference with evidence and witnesses in the CBI proceedings. 
&nbsp;

A London high court ruled on Wednesday (Mar 28) that the luxury apartment of fugitive Indian diamond merchant Nirav Modi in London, valued at a minimum of GBP 5.

A London high court ruled on Wednesday (Mar 28) that the luxury apartment of fugitive Indian diamond merchant Nirav Modi in London, valued at a minimum of GBP 5.25 million, can be sold. The decision came after a remote hearing attended by Modi, who is currently in prison in the UK. India's Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that the apartment's assets stem from a massive fraud on the Punjab National Bank (PNB), for which Nirav Modi faces extradition proceedings. Judge Master James Brightwell accepted the sale of the property for GBP 5.25 million or more, ensuring the proceeds are held securely after clearing the trust's liabilities. "I am satisfied that it is a reasonable decision to allow for the property to be sold for GBP 5.25 million or above," Master Brightwell said. The case involves Trident Trust Company (Singapore) Pte Limited seeking to sell the apartment in Marylebone, with Nirav Modi's sister and family named as beneficiaries of the trust. Barrister Harish Salve, representing the ED, ensured safeguards were in place to protect the interests of potential beneficiaries and prevent a rushed sale of the asset. Nirav Modi claims to be the "true settler" of the trust, asserting his right to the proceeds from the sale based on his alleged contribution to its purchase. Also read | UK delegations face pressure from India on extradition of fugitives Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi Nirav Modi participated in the proceedings remotely from prison, expressing concerns about potential buyers linked to ongoing investigations by the ED. Despite losing his extradition battle in 2022, Nirav Modi faces further litigation, including pending legal costs amounting to GBP 150,247. There are three criminal cases against Nirav Modi in India related to fraud at the PNB bank, which caused losses of over GBP 700 million. These cases include an ED case involving the alleged laundering of the proceeds of that fraud, and a third set of criminal proceedings involving alleged interference with evidence and witnesses in the CBI proceedings.

London high court approves sale of Nirav Modi's luxury apartment amid extradition proceedings

The Government of Pakistan has made a payment of $28.706 million (Rs4.59 billion) to the British firm Broadsheet LLC after losing the long-running litigation at the London High Court.

The payment was made by Pakistan High Commission (PHC) on behalf of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to the assets recovery firm — 17 years after it was hired to trace alleged foreign assets of dozens of Pakistanis which it failed to find any.

The Broadsheet LLC was hired by NAB during Musharraf’s regime to trace hidden assets of 200 Pakistanis, including former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and former president Asif Zardari in foreign countries. NAB terminated its agreement with Broadsheet in 2003. The firm’s claim against Pakistan was worth at least $600 million.

On December 17 the London High Court’s Financial Division had issued a Final Third Party Order for payment to NAB’s former client Broadsheet by December 30 bringing to end a case that has cost Pakistani taxpayers billions of rupees.

The sources said that around Rs4.5 billion ($26,153,783.34) NAB amount was lying in the UBL, London account, which is operated in the name of Pakistan High Commission in the UK.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Government of Pakistan has made a payment of $28.706 million (Rs4.59 billion) to the British firm Broadsheet LLC after losing the long-running litigation at the London High Court.

The Government of Pakistan has made a payment of $28.706 million (Rs4.59 billion) to the British firm Broadsheet LLC after losing the long-running litigation at the London High Court. The payment was made by Pakistan High Commission (PHC) on behalf of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to the assets recovery firm — 17 years after it was hired to trace alleged foreign assets of dozens of Pakistanis which it failed to find any. The Broadsheet LLC was hired by NAB during Musharraf’s regime to trace hidden assets of 200 Pakistanis, including former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and former president Asif Zardari in foreign countries. NAB terminated its agreement with Broadsheet in 2003. The firm’s claim against Pakistan was worth at least $600 million. On December 17 the London High Court’s Financial Division had issued a Final Third Party Order for payment to NAB’s former client Broadsheet by December 30 bringing to end a case that has cost Pakistani taxpayers billions of rupees. The sources said that around Rs4.5 billion ($26,153,783.34) NAB amount was lying in the UBL, London account, which is operated in the name of Pakistan High Commission in the UK. (With inputs from agencies)

British court orders Pakistan to pay $28.7 million to UK firm

The case ran for 2 years in the court and it has witnessed disturbing accusations of violence, celebrity affairs, threesomes, the loss of $750 million, and marriage

Amber Heard takes on Johnny Depp | Heard accused Depp of Physical abuse

The first court hearing in a privacy case brought by Meghan, Britain`s Duchess of Sussex, against a tabloid newspaper for printing part of one of her letters takes place at London`s High Court on Friday. 
 
Meghan, the wife of Queen Elizabeth`s grandson Prince Harry, is suing publisher Associated Newspapers over articles its Mail on Sunday newspaper printed in February last year which were based on a letter she had sent to her father, Thomas Markle. 
 
Lawyers for the duchess say its publication was a misuse of private information and breached her copyright. They are seeking aggravated damages from the paper. 
 
Meghan and her father fell out on the eve of her glitzy, pomp-laden wedding to Harry in May 2018. 
 
Markle pulled out days beforehand after undergoing heart surgery and following news he had staged photos with a paparazzi photographer, and speculation about his attendance dominated the build-up to the ceremony. 
 
Documents from her lawyers this week accused the Mail and other tabloids of harassing, humiliating and manipulating Markle, and contributing towards the fallout between father and daughter. 
 
They argue the Mail had also misquoted from the letter, which was never intended to be made public, to paint the royals in a poor light. 
 
The Mail says unnamed friends of Meghan had put her version of events in interviews with the U.S. magazine People and that Markle had the right to put his side. 
 
The paper`s lawyers also argue that given Meghan`s royal status, there was a legitimate public interest in her personal and family relationships. 
 
Friday`s hearing, which will be held remotely because of Britain`s coronavirus lockdown, is the start of the court action and no witnesses will take part. No date has been set yet for the full trial. 
 
In the papers submitted by Meghan`s lawyers this week were details of text messages sent by Harry to his future father-in-law, pleading with him not to talk to the press and to call him and his daughter. 
 
The duchess missed a call from Markle at 4.57 a.m. on the morning of the wedding and she has not received any calls or messages from him since then, the court papers added. 
 
The legal action is the latest step in growing hostility between the media and the couple, who are now living in the Los Angeles area having stepped down from their royal roles at the end of last month. 
 
This week the royals announced they would have "zero engagement" with four of Britain`s top tabloids, accusing them of false and invasive coverage. 
 
That statement brought anger and derision from many newspapers which accused them of egotism and questionable timing by making the announcement during the COVID-19 crisis.

The first court hearing in a privacy case brought by Meghan, Britain`s Duchess of Sussex, against a tabloid newspaper for printing part of one of her letters takes place at London`s High Court on Friday.

The first court hearing in a privacy case brought by Meghan, Britain`s Duchess of Sussex, against a tabloid newspaper for printing part of one of her letters takes place at London`s High Court on Friday. Meghan, the wife of Queen Elizabeth`s grandson Prince Harry, is suing publisher Associated Newspapers over articles its Mail on Sunday newspaper printed in February last year which were based on a letter she had sent to her father, Thomas Markle. Lawyers for the duchess say its publication was a misuse of private information and breached her copyright. They are seeking aggravated damages from the paper. Meghan and her father fell out on the eve of her glitzy, pomp-laden wedding to Harry in May 2018. Markle pulled out days beforehand after undergoing heart surgery and following news he had staged photos with a paparazzi photographer, and speculation about his attendance dominated the build-up to the ceremony. Documents from her lawyers this week accused the Mail and other tabloids of harassing, humiliating and manipulating Markle, and contributing towards the fallout between father and daughter. They argue the Mail had also misquoted from the letter, which was never intended to be made public, to paint the royals in a poor light. The Mail says unnamed friends of Meghan had put her version of events in interviews with the U.S. magazine People and that Markle had the right to put his side. The paper`s lawyers also argue that given Meghan`s royal status, there was a legitimate public interest in her personal and family relationships. Friday`s hearing, which will be held remotely because of Britain`s coronavirus lockdown, is the start of the court action and no witnesses will take part. No date has been set yet for the full trial. In the papers submitted by Meghan`s lawyers this week were details of text messages sent by Harry to his future father-in-law, pleading with him not to talk to the press and to call him and his daughter. The duchess missed a call from Markle at 4.57 a.m. on the morning of the wedding and she has not received any calls or messages from him since then, the court papers added. The legal action is the latest step in growing hostility between the media and the couple, who are now living in the Los Angeles area having stepped down from their royal roles at the end of last month. This week the royals announced they would have "zero engagement" with four of Britain`s top tabloids, accusing them of false and invasive coverage. That statement brought anger and derision from many newspapers which accused them of egotism and questionable timing by making the announcement during the COVID-19 crisis.

Meghan Markle's privacy action against tabloid goes to London High Court

In a landmark constitutional decision, the England&#39;s high court on Thursday ruled that the UK Parliament must hold a vote on beginning the process of leaving the European Union.&nbsp;

The British government said it will appeal the shock ruling that parliament, and not the government, must approve the start of Britain&#39;s withdrawal from the European Union.

&quot;We will appeal this judgment,&quot; said a statement from Prime Minister Theresa May&#39;s office. &quot;The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament.&quot;

May had said she intends to use her right of &quot;historic prerogative powers&quot; and begin the formal exit talks by March end, but the latest verdict means the government must conduct a parliamentary vote in order to trigger the Article 50.&nbsp;

Most members of the House of Commons campaigned for Britain to stay in the EU in the June referendum, and there is speculation they could push for a softer break with the bloc and the parliamentary vote could delay the Brexit by months.

May has accused those involving the court of seeking to frustrate the process and delay the discussions with the EU, which could affect her negotiating stance.&nbsp;

The campaigners argue that Britain was taken into the EU by parliament, and only the parliament can make the decision to leave.

&quot;This is not about whether we should stay or leave, this is actually about how we leave,&quot; Gina Miller, the co-founder of investment fund SCM Private and the lead claimant in the case, told AFP last month.

She added: &quot;If we bypass or we set a precedent... that a prime minister can decide what rights we have and what rights we don&#39;t, then basically we go back to being a dictatorship and we roll back democracy 400 years.&quot;

The government is expected to challenge the ruling and appeal to the Supreme Court for final deliberation before the end of the year.&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from AFP) 
&nbsp;

In a major upset for Theresa May's Brexit plans, the high court said the UK govenment must take parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50

In a landmark constitutional decision, the England's high court on Thursday ruled that the UK Parliament must hold a vote on beginning the process of leaving the European Union. The British government said it will appeal the shock ruling that parliament, and not the government, must approve the start of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union. "We will appeal this judgment," said a statement from Prime Minister Theresa May's office. "The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament." May had said she intends to use her right of "historic prerogative powers" and begin the formal exit talks by March end, but the latest verdict means the government must conduct a parliamentary vote in order to trigger the Article 50. Most members of the House of Commons campaigned for Britain to stay in the EU in the June referendum, and there is speculation they could push for a softer break with the bloc and the parliamentary vote could delay the Brexit by months. May has accused those involving the court of seeking to frustrate the process and delay the discussions with the EU, which could affect her negotiating stance. The campaigners argue that Britain was taken into the EU by parliament, and only the parliament can make the decision to leave. "This is not about whether we should stay or leave, this is actually about how we leave," Gina Miller, the co-founder of investment fund SCM Private and the lead claimant in the case, told AFP last month. She added: "If we bypass or we set a precedent... that a prime minister can decide what rights we have and what rights we don't, then basically we go back to being a dictatorship and we roll back democracy 400 years." The government is expected to challenge the ruling and appeal to the Supreme Court for final deliberation before the end of the year. (WION with inputs from AFP)

UK parliament must hold vote to open Brexit talks, rules high court