Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut has alleged that she only received a notice from Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on Tuesday notifying her about the unauthorized construction at her Mumbai office. A notice issued by the BMC back in 2018 is doing the rounds of the internet which Kangana alleged was "fake". 
 
On Wednesday, the BMC demolished part of Kangana's Bandra office. The demolition drive ended when Bombay High Court issued a stay order. 
 
&nbsp;The `Queen` actor took to Twitter to share a copy of the said document and accused the Maharashtra government of "spreading fake" information. 
 
"Paid sources of Maha government are spreading fake info, BMC never sent any notice to me until yesterday," she tweeted. 
 
"In fact I got all the documents cleared myself from BMC for renovations. @mybmc at least have the courage to stand by your audacity. why lie now?," she added.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Paid sources of Maha government are spreading fake info,BMC never sent any notice to me until yesterday,in fact I got all the documents cleared myself from BMC for renovations. ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/mybmc?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mybmc</a>⁩ at least have the courage to stand by your audacity 🙂 why lie now? <a href="https://t.co/CVUQGxkNiS">pic.twitter.com/CVUQGxkNiS</a>
— Kangana Ranaut (@KanganaTeam) <a href="https://twitter.com/KanganaTeam/status/1303706833257811974?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The document dated October 20, 2018, had been doing rounds on Twitter since Wednesday morning. 
 
A bench of the High Court also asked the BMC to file a reply to her petition in the matter.Ranaut, through her lawyer Rizwan Siddiqui, had moved the High Court against the demolition of what the BMC termed as "illegal alterations" at her office. 
 
Ranaut took to Twitter to state "my Mumbai is POK now" and posted photographs of city municipal corporation officials demolishing parts of her property in the city.

&nbsp;

Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut has alleged that she only received a notice from Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on Tuesday notifying her about the unauthorized construction at her Mumbai office.

Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut has alleged that she only received a notice from Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on Tuesday notifying her about the unauthorized construction at her Mumbai office. A notice issued by the BMC back in 2018 is doing the rounds of the internet which Kangana alleged was "fake". On Wednesday, the BMC demolished part of Kangana's Bandra office. The demolition drive ended when Bombay High Court issued a stay order. The `Queen` actor took to Twitter to share a copy of the said document and accused the Maharashtra government of "spreading fake" information. "Paid sources of Maha government are spreading fake info, BMC never sent any notice to me until yesterday," she tweeted. "In fact I got all the documents cleared myself from BMC for renovations. @mybmc at least have the courage to stand by your audacity. why lie now?," she added. Paid sources of Maha government are spreading fake info,BMC never sent any notice to me until yesterday,in fact I got all the documents cleared myself from BMC for renovations. ⁦@mybmc⁩ at least have the courage to stand by your audacity 🙂 why lie now? pic.twitter.com/CVUQGxkNiS — Kangana Ranaut (@KanganaTeam) September 9, 2020 × The document dated October 20, 2018, had been doing rounds on Twitter since Wednesday morning. A bench of the High Court also asked the BMC to file a reply to her petition in the matter.Ranaut, through her lawyer Rizwan Siddiqui, had moved the High Court against the demolition of what the BMC termed as "illegal alterations" at her office. Ranaut took to Twitter to state "my Mumbai is POK now" and posted photographs of city municipal corporation officials demolishing parts of her property in the city.

Kangana Ranaut says BMC sent her notice on Tuesday, claims viral 2018 document is 'fake'

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre and Maharashtra government on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to declare the services rendered by lawyers as "essential services" amid the coronavirus lockdown. 
 
A division bench of Justice AA Sayed and Justice MS Karnik asked the State and Central government to file their affidavits on the matter within a period of two weeks.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/over-15-lakh-people-quarantined-in-mumbai-after-coronavirus-contact-tracing-bmc-311379" hreflang="en">Over 15 lakh people quarantined in Mumbai after coronavirus contact-tracing: BMC</a> 
 
The PIL, filed by a group of three lawyers advocates Chirag Chanani, Sumit Khanna, and Vinay Kumar, sought to declare the services rendered by lawyers as "essential services" to enable them to travel by local trains. 
 
The plea asked why the authorities concerned had not included lawyers in the list of essential service categories, which have been permitted to travel by local train for performing their duties, despite legal service being considered to be essential services.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/now-mumbai-overtakes-china-in-covid-19-deaths-and-cases-311330" hreflang="en">Now, Mumbai overtakes China in COVID-19 deaths and cases</a> 
 
Advocate Shyam Dewani, representing the three lawyers, submitted before the high court that the practicing lawyers are residing in suburban localities of Mumbai city but having their places of work in South Mumbai. 
 
"So in connection with attending their offices and various courts in Mumbai city, they are required to travel a lot, however, they are being restricted from commuting by local train, as the legal services rendered by lawyers are not considered as essential services by the circular issued by the Divisional Railway Managers office," the plea said. 
 
It said that there is no reason to deprive them of using local trains when they are required to do the same to attend the courts and render their services in assisting the cause of justice. 
 
The plea said that the petitioners do not have the facilities of private vehicles and now that physical working of courts, etc have started, they are not in a position to effectively render assistance to the cause of justice. 
 
"Due to a lack of infrastructure, matters in the subordinate courts are being taken up through physical appearances, and for that purpose members of the judiciary and staff of courts are permitted to travel through local trains but most of the lawyers practicing in those courts, do not have facilities at their command to travel and earn their livelihood," the plea said.&nbsp;

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre and Maharashtra government on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to declare the services rendered by lawyers as "essential services" amid the coronavirus lockdown.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Centre and Maharashtra government on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to declare the services rendered by lawyers as "essential services" amid the coronavirus lockdown. A division bench of Justice AA Sayed and Justice MS Karnik asked the State and Central government to file their affidavits on the matter within a period of two weeks. Also read: Over 15 lakh people quarantined in Mumbai after coronavirus contact-tracing: BMC The PIL, filed by a group of three lawyers advocates Chirag Chanani, Sumit Khanna, and Vinay Kumar, sought to declare the services rendered by lawyers as "essential services" to enable them to travel by local trains. The plea asked why the authorities concerned had not included lawyers in the list of essential service categories, which have been permitted to travel by local train for performing their duties, despite legal service being considered to be essential services. Also read: Now, Mumbai overtakes China in COVID-19 deaths and cases Advocate Shyam Dewani, representing the three lawyers, submitted before the high court that the practicing lawyers are residing in suburban localities of Mumbai city but having their places of work in South Mumbai. "So in connection with attending their offices and various courts in Mumbai city, they are required to travel a lot, however, they are being restricted from commuting by local train, as the legal services rendered by lawyers are not considered as essential services by the circular issued by the Divisional Railway Managers office," the plea said. It said that there is no reason to deprive them of using local trains when they are required to do the same to attend the courts and render their services in assisting the cause of justice. The plea said that the petitioners do not have the facilities of private vehicles and now that physical working of courts, etc have started, they are not in a position to effectively render assistance to the cause of justice. "Due to a lack of infrastructure, matters in the subordinate courts are being taken up through physical appearances, and for that purpose members of the judiciary and staff of courts are permitted to travel through local trains but most of the lawyers practicing in those courts, do not have facilities at their command to travel and earn their livelihood," the plea said.

Bombay HC seeks centre's response to PIL seeking inclusion of lawyers in essential services

The Bombay High Court slapped a fine of Rs 25 lakh on a company for not following the High Court orders and threatening the applicant with a false case.

The Court passed the order in a matter where the company (Sapat and Company) had filed a plea against another company (Feel Good India) for violating copyright in their packaging of the product.

The fine was slapped on January 11 and has to be paid in three instalments by February 28, 2019. Out of these 25 lakhs, 5 lakhs are to be paid to the applicant and 20 lakhs are to be donated to the Tata Memorial Hospital.

The High Court also ordered to seize the packing materials from the defendant company but it's owner Neha Gandhir not only stopped the people from collecting the packing material but also threatened them to frame them in a false molestation case.

Taking note of the threat to frame the opponent in a false case, the High Court imposed the hefty fine of them.

The Court took into consideration that the defendant company's Neha Gandhir and her husband not only stopped people from following the High Court orders but also threatened the applicant with a false complaint in sections which are actually meant for protection of women.

The Bombay High Court slapped a fine of Rs 25 lakh on a company for not following the High Court orders and threatening the applicant with a false case. The Court passed the order in a matter where the company (Sapat and Company) had filed a plea against another company (Feel Good India) for violating copyright in their packaging of the product.

The Bombay High Court slapped a fine of Rs 25 lakh on a company for not following the High Court orders and threatening the applicant with a false case. The Court passed the order in a matter where the company (Sapat and Company) had filed a plea against another company (Feel Good India) for violating copyright in their packaging of the product. The fine was slapped on January 11 and has to be paid in three instalments by February 28, 2019. Out of these 25 lakhs, 5 lakhs are to be paid to the applicant and 20 lakhs are to be donated to the Tata Memorial Hospital. The High Court also ordered to seize the packing materials from the defendant company but it's owner Neha Gandhir not only stopped the people from collecting the packing material but also threatened them to frame them in a false molestation case. Taking note of the threat to frame the opponent in a false case, the High Court imposed the hefty fine of them. The Court took into consideration that the defendant company's Neha Gandhir and her husband not only stopped people from following the High Court orders but also threatened the applicant with a false complaint in sections which are actually meant for protection of women.

Bombay high court slaps Rs 25 lakh fine on company for not following orders, false case

The Bombay High Court has allowed an NRI woman to record her consent for a mutual divorce from her estranged husband via Skype or any other video calling technology.

Justice Bharati Dangre, earlier this month, set aside an order of the city's family court which refused to register the US-based woman's petition seeking divorce on the ground that she was not physically present to file it.

The woman had challenged the family court order's in the high court.

Justice Dangre, in her judgement, permitted the woman's father to act as the holder of her power of attorney to pursue the case.

The HC judge asked the family court to record the woman's consent for mutual divorce via online video calling technology like Skype.

"Due to globalisation and since educated young persons are crossing the borders of India, it is not possible to remain present (to file petitions)," the HC said.

It also relied on another HC decision which permitted marriage counselling with the help of webcam.

"There is no legal lacunae in filing of the petition through a registered power of attorney. The family court will not insist on the presence of the parties before the court and would arrange for the consent terms to be recorded either through Skype or adopting any other technology," Justice Dangre said in her order.

The couple got married in 2002 but had been living separately since 2016. The woman later settled in the US. 
 
Last year, they approached the family court seeking divorce by mutual consent.

The judge had earlier this month set aside an order of the city's family court which refused to register the US-based woman's petition seeking divorce on the ground that she was not physically present to file it

The Bombay High Court has allowed an NRI woman to record her consent for a mutual divorce from her estranged husband via Skype or any other video calling technology. Justice Bharati Dangre, earlier this month, set aside an order of the city's family court which refused to register the US-based woman's petition seeking divorce on the ground that she was not physically present to file it. The woman had challenged the family court order's in the high court. Justice Dangre, in her judgement, permitted the woman's father to act as the holder of her power of attorney to pursue the case. The HC judge asked the family court to record the woman's consent for mutual divorce via online video calling technology like Skype. "Due to globalisation and since educated young persons are crossing the borders of India, it is not possible to remain present (to file petitions)," the HC said. It also relied on another HC decision which permitted marriage counselling with the help of webcam. "There is no legal lacunae in filing of the petition through a registered power of attorney. The family court will not insist on the presence of the parties before the court and would arrange for the consent terms to be recorded either through Skype or adopting any other technology," Justice Dangre said in her order. The couple got married in 2002 but had been living separately since 2016. The woman later settled in the US. Last year, they approached the family court seeking divorce by mutual consent.

Bombay High Court allows woman to consent to divorce over Skype