Court Summons Mohammed Shami In Cheque Bounce Case


Court Summons Mohammed Shami In Cheque Bounce Case


A court here Wednesday directed Indian pacer Mohammed Shami to appear before it. © AFP


A court in Kolkata on Wednesday directed Indian pacer Mohammed Shami to appear before it on January 15 in connection with a complaint of cheque bounce filed by his wife, with whom he is embroiled in a marital dispute case. Alipore Judicial Magistrate Md Zafar Parwej, in-charge of the chief judicial magistrate court on this day, said that failure to appear personally may invite a warrant of arrest against Shami.

His wife Hasin Jahan filed the case under NI Act after the cricketer had allegedly stopped payment of a cheque which he had given to her for monthly expenses after a marital dispute arose between the two, following which they were residing separately.

The CJM had directed Shami to appear before the court on Wednesday after he had failed to appear on an earlier date in October.

But the cricketer was not present in the court on Wednesday too.

His lawyer Sk Salim Rahaman pleaded before judge Parwej that Shami be allowed to appear through the counsel.

The judge, however, said that the law was the same for everyone and directed Shami to appear personally on January 15, 2019.

The court said that failure on the part of Shami to appear before the court on the said date may invite issuance of arrest warrant against him.






Source link

Indian-American Neomi Rao To Replace Brett Kavanaugh In US Court, Says US President Donald Trump


Indian-American lawyer Neomi Rao will fill the seat vacated by Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. (File)

Washington: 

Indian-American lawyer Neomi Rao has been nominated by US President Donald Trump to fill Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump, during Diwali celebrations on Tuesday at the Roosevelt Room of the White House, announced the nomination of the 45-year-old regulatory czar for the DC Circuit which is considered next to the US Supreme Court.

If confirmed by the Senate, Ms Rao, who is currently administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), would be the second Indian-American judge in this powerful court after judge Sree Srinivasan, who was appointed during the previous Obama regime.

“She is going to be fantastic. Great person,” Trump said.

Ms Rao will fill the seat vacated by Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, who served on the appeals court for 12 years.

A formal announcement on her nomination is expected to be made by the White House today.

“I just nominated Rao to be on the DC circuit court of appeals, the seat of justice Brett Kavanaugh. That could be a big story,” Trump announced.

Ms Rao thanked the President for the “confidence” he has shown in her.

Called the ‘regulatory czar’ of Trump administration in her current capacity, she oversees implementation of the administration’s deregulatory agenda and regulation-related executive orders.

She was confirmed by the Senate with a 54-41 vote in July 2017 to head the OIRA and is known among legal circles as a highly respected administrative law scholar who has distinguished herself for her right-of-centre views, media reports stated.

A former clerk for conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Ms Rao was recommended for the post by former White House counsel Don McGahn. Trump’s nomination of Ms Rao is in recognition of her contribution in cutting down regulations.

Ms Rao has previously served in all three branches of the federal government, and before taking on her current role in the executive branch, she was associate counsel and special assistant to the president for the George W Bush administration.

A graduate of Yale University and the University of Chicago Law School, Ms Rao also worked in the private sector, in the international arbitration group of the London-based law firm, Clifford Chance LLP.





Source link

“What If Offset Partner Runs Off?” Why Supreme Court Asked This On Rafale


The court had asked the defence ministry why the offset guidelines were changed in 2015.

New Delhi: 

In a four-hour hearing on the Rafale jet deal today, the Supreme Court questioned the government’s stance that it had no role in the offset clause, which is the focal point of the opposition’s charge of corruption in the 59,000 crore contract.

Rafale-maker Dassault has not yet submitted details of its offset partner to the government, Attorney General KK Venugopal told the Supreme Court. “The vendor will inform the offset partner to us. So far there is no information on this,” said the Additional Secretary Defence Apurva Chandra.

The court had asked the defence ministry why the offset guidelines were changed in 2015.

The opposition alleges that the government scrapped a deal for 126 Rafale jets negotiated by the previous UPA government and opted for a not-so-lucrative new deal for 36 jets to help Anil Ambani’s debt-hit defence company bag the offset contract with Dassault.

In the previous deal, the offset pact was to be signed with Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Aerospace Technologies. 

When the court asked about the change in the offset guidelines in 2015, the Additional Secretary of the Defence Ministry explained that the offset contract runs concurrently with the main contract. 

During arguments in court, the government said a political issue was being made out of the offset partner. “We have already said the government has no role in the selection of the offset partner,” said the top government lawyer.

Justice KM Joseph questioned: “If the offset partner runs off, what happens? What about the country’s interest? What if the offset partner doesn’t do any production?”

The court said the government “can’t separate” the main contract from the offset contract. “It may not be in the country’s interest if the offset contract is executed later because that may lead to delay in production by the offset partner,” the court said.

Disclaimer: NDTV has been sued for 10,000 crores by Anil Ambani’s Reliance Group for its coverage of the Rafale deal.
 





Source link

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Sabarimala Women Entry Order, Asks Petitioner to Wait Till January 22


The two-month long annual pilgrim season at Sabarimala temple will start from November 17

New Delhi: 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to put on hold its order ending a ban on women of menstrual age entering Kerala’s Sabarimala temple.

“Wait till January 22,” Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi told a petitioner who wanted the top court to suspend its ruling and review its September 28 order.

The judges yesterday agreed to review the order in open court and will take up some 49 petitions on January 22.

The Kerala government has called an all-party meeting today to discuss the latest court ruling and amenities for pilgrims at the Lord Ayyappa temple that has been off-limits to women in the 10 to 50 age group for centuries.

The two-month long annual pilgrim season at the shrine will start from November 17.

Since the historic court order, no woman under 50 has been able to enter the hilltop shrine because of massive protests by the devotees who believe changing the tradition would be an insult to Lord Ayyappa, a celibate god. More than a dozen women tried and failed to make it to the temple, even with heavy police protection.

More than 3,700 persons have been arrested during protests across the state.

 

 





Source link

Namaj read by the Tourists in tajmahal after the Supreme Court ban


zeenews.india.com understands that your privacy is important to you and we are committed for being transparent about the technologies we use.  This cookie policy explains how and why cookies and other similar technologies may be stored on and accessed from your device when you use or visit zeenews.india.com websites that posts a link to this Policy (collectively, “the sites”). This cookie policy should be read together with our Privacy Policy.

By continuing to browse or use our sites, you agree that we can store and access cookies and other tracking technologies as described in this policy.

What are Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies?

A cookie is a small text file that can be stored on and accessed from your device when you visit one of our sites, to the extent you agree.  The other tracking technologies work similarly to cookies and place small data files on your devices or monitor your website activity to enable us to collect information about how you use our sites. This allows our sites to recognize your device from those of other users on our sites. The information provided below about cookies also applies to these other tracking technologies.


How do our sites use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies?

Zeenews.com use cookies and other technologies to store information in your web browser or on your mobile phone, tablet, computer, or other devices (collectively “devices”) that allow us to store and receive certain pieces of information whenever you use or interact with our zeenews.india.com applications and sites. Such cookies and other technologies helps us to identify you and your interests, to remember your preferences and to track use of zeenews.india.com We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to control access to certain content on our sites, protect the sites, and to process any requests that you make to us.
We also use cookies to administer our sites and for research purposes, zeenews.india.com also has contracted with third-party service providers to track and analyse statistical usage and volume information from our site users. These third-party service providers use persistent Cookies to help us improve user experience, manage our site content, and analyse how users navigate and utilize the sites.

First and Third-party Cookies

First party cookies

These are those cookies that belong to us and which we place on your device or are those set by a website that is being visited by the user at the time (e.g., cookies placed by zeenews.india.com)

Third-party cookies

Some features used on this website may involve a cookie being sent to your computer by a third party. For example, if you view or listen to any embedded audio or video content you may be sent cookies from the site where the embedded content is hosted. Likewise, if you share any content on this website through social networks (for example by clicking a Facebook “like” button or a “Tweet” button) you may be sent cookies from these websites. We do not control the setting of these cookies so please check the websites of these third parties for more information about their cookies and how to manage them.

Persistent Cookies
We use persistent cookies to improve your experience of using the sites. This includes recording your acceptance of our cookie policy to remove the cookie message which first appears when you visit our site.
Session Cookies 
Session cookies are temporary and deleted from your machine when your web browser closes. We use session cookies to help us track internet usage as described above.
You may refuse to accept browser Cookies by activating the appropriate setting on your browser. However, if you select this setting you may be unable to access certain parts of the sites. Unless you have adjusted your browser setting so that it will refuse cookies, our system will check if cookies can be captured when you direct your browser to our sites.
The data collected by the sites and/or through Cookies that may be placed on your computer will not be kept for longer than is necessary to fulfil the purposes mentioned above. In any event, such information will be kept in our database until we get explicit consent from you to remove all the stored cookies.

We categorize cookies as follows:

Essential Cookies

These cookie are essential to our site in order to enable you to move around it and to use its features. Without these essential cookies we may not be able to provide certain services or features and our site will not perform as smoothly for you as we would like. These cookies, for example, let us recognize that you have created an account and have logged in/out to access site content. They also include Cookies that enable us to remember your previous actions within the same browsing session and secure our sites.

Analytical/Performance Cookies

These cookies are used by us or by our third-party service providers to analyse how the sites are used and how they are performing. For example, these cookies track what content are most frequently visited, your viewing history and from what locations our visitors come from. If you subscribe to a newsletter or otherwise register with the Sites, these cookies may be correlated to you.

Functionality Cookies

These cookies let us operate the sites in accordance with the choices you make. These cookies permit us to “remember you” in-between visits. For instance, we will recognize your user name and remember how you customized the sites and services, for example by adjusting text size, fonts, languages and other parts of web pages that are alterable, and provide you with the same customizations during future visits.

Advertising Cookies

These cookies collect information about your activities on our sites as well as other sites to provide you targeted advertising. We may also allow our third-party service providers to use cookies on the sites for the same purposes identified above, including collecting information about your online activities over time and across different websites. The third-party service providers that generate these cookies, such as, social media platforms, have their own privacy policies, and may use their cookies to target advertisement to you on other websites, based on your visit to our sites.

How do I refuse or withdraw my consent to the use of Cookies?

If you do not want cookies to be dropped on your device, you can adjust the setting of your Internet browser to reject the setting of all or some cookies and to alert you when a cookie is placed on your device. For further information about how to do so, please refer to your browser ‘help’ / ‘tool’ or ‘edit’ section for cookie settings w.r.t your browser that may be Google Chrome, Safari, Mozilla Firefox etc.
Please note that if your browser setting is already setup to block all cookies (including strictly necessary Cookies) you may not be able to access or use all or parts or functionalities of our sites.
If you want to remove previously-stored cookies, you can manually delete the cookies at any time from your browser settings. However, this will not prevent the sites from placing further cookies on your device unless and until you adjust your Internet browser setting as described above.
For more information on the development of user-profiles and the use of targeting/advertising Cookies, please see www.youronlinechoices.eu if you are located in Europe or www.aboutads.info/choices if in the United States.

Contact us

If you have any other questions about our Cookie Policy, please contact us at:
If you require any information or clarification regarding the use of your personal information or this privacy policy or grievances with respect to use of your personal information, please email us at [email protected]





Source link

Rafale Case Hearing Under Way In Supreme Court; Centre Submits Details


Congress and its chief Rahul Gandhi have accused the Centre of “corruption” in the Rafale jet deal

New Delhi: 

The Supreme Court today commenced its crucial hearing on pleas seeking a court-monitored investigation into the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph is also likely to peruse the pricing details of the jets submitted by the government in a sealed cover.

During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of himself, and former union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, submitted that the NDA government “short circuited” the acquisition process by taking the Inter-Government Agreement (IGA) route to avoid giving tender.

He claimed that there was no sovereign guarantee from the French government in the deal.

Mr Bhushan argued that initially the Union Law Ministry had flagged the issue, but later gave in to the proposal of entering into the Inter-Government Agreement.

The Air Force needed 126 fighter jets and had intimated the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) about it, he said referring to the process of defence acquisition.

“Initially, six foreign companies had applied and two firms were shortlisted during the earlier process. Later the deal went to French firm Dassault and state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd was part of it. But, suddenly a statement was issued and it said there will be no technology transfer, and only 36 jets would be procured,” the lawyer told the court.

Mr Bhushan submitted that nobody knows about the alleged change in the deal done by the prime minister and even the defence minister was not aware about the the change.

Advocates ML Sharma, Vineet Dhanda and Aam Aadmi Party lawmaker Sanjay Singh, also advanced their arguments before Mr Bhushan.

Mr Sharma, who opened the argument, told the court that the Inter-Government Agreement was “illegal” and sought an investigation into the matter.

Mr Dhanda sought a proper reply from the Centre on his plea questioning the Rafale deal.

AAP leader’s counsel Dheeraj Singh questioned as to why the government reduced the deal of 126 jets to 36. He said the government should have increased the number of jets when there was a concern that adversaries were inducting more fighter jets.

Mr Bhushan also raised the same point as Mr Singh and said three-and-a-half years have passed since the deal was signed on 36 Rafale jets but no aircraft has been received till now.

He said that the first jet is to be delivered in September 2019 and delivery of jets would continue till 2022. “If the 126 aircraft deal was still on, at least 18 jets would have been delivered by April 2019,” he claimed.

The hearing is currently under way in the Supreme Court.

The petitions in the matter have been filed by advocates ML Sharma, Vineet Dhanda. Later, AAP MP Sanjay Singh had also filed a petition.

Former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan also filed a joint petition.

Disclaimer: NDTV has been sued for 10,000 crores by Anil Ambani’s Reliance Group for its coverage of the Rafale deal.

 





Source link

Centre Opposes Supreme Court Reviewing Deal, Says It Is For Experts To Do It


New Delhi: 

Is the court competent to judicially review the Rafale deal, asked the centre’s top law officer while the Supreme Court was hearing a bunch of petitions demanding a probe into the fighter jet deal with France.

The centre has objected to the top court reviewing the deal saying the “matter is for experts to decide on, not for the court”.

On Monday, the government had submitted details of how it decided to buy 36 fighter jets from French defence manufacturer Dassault at Rs 59,000 crore, to the top court and petitioners who have asked for an investigation into the deal.

The pricing details, which the centre said were classified, were also submitted in a sealed cover to the court.

But lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan, one of the petitioners, wants the monetary details to be made public and alleged that the government was hiding behind the secrecy clause to not disclose the price of the Rafale jets

The attorney general defended the secrecy clause and said, “Our adversaries may get advantage if the entire details on the pricing are disclosed.”
 





Source link

Delhi High Court rejects mercy petition of Dati Maharaj


नई दिल्ली: दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय (Delhi High Court) ने स्वयंभू प्रवचनकर्ता दाती महाराज (Dati Maharaj) की याचिका को बुधवार को खारिज कर दिया. ध्यान हो कि इस याचिका में अदालत के उस फैसले की समीक्षा की मांग की गई थी जिसमें उसके खिलाफ दर्ज रेप के मामले की जांच सीबीआई को सौंपने को कहा गया था. मुख्य न्यायाधीश राजेंद्र मेनन एवं न्यायमूर्ति वी के राव की पीठ ने तीन अक्टूबर के अदालत के फैसले के खिलाफ दाखिल दाती महाराज की पुनर्विचार याचिका पर यह फैसला सुनाया. अदालत ने तीन अक्टूबर को एक महिला के आवेदन पर मामले की जांच केंद्रीय जांच ब्यूरो (CBI) को सौंप दी थी. महिला ने दाती महाराज पर बलात्कार का आरोप लगाया था.

यह भी पढ़ें: दाती महाराज के 3 सौतेले भाइयों से क्राइम ब्रांच करेगी पूछताछ


उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा था कि जिस तरह से पुलिस ने जांच की वह जांच पर संदेह पैदा करता है. गौरतलब है कि एक युवती द्वारा रेप का आरोप लगाने के बाद दाती महाराज ने कुछ दिन पहले ही  अपनी सफाई दी थी. दाती महाराज ने कहा था कि मेरे आश्रम में अभिषेक अग्रवाल नाम का आदमी रहा जिस पर मैंने खूब विश्वास किया. उसने कुछ लोगों के साथ मेरे नाम पर लेनदेन किया. अब वही दो लोग नवीन गुप्ता और सचिन जैन मुझसे 32 करोड़ रुपये मांग रहे हैं, जबकि मुझे इस लेनदेन की कोई जानकारी नहीं है. सचिन और नवीन भी इसी आश्रम में रहे हैं. सचिन ने अपने बाउंसरों के साथ मेरी कार को गुड़गांव में घेरा था और मुझे देख लेने की धमकी दी थी. मुझे लगता है मेरे खिलाफ ये साज़िश की गई है.

यह भी पढ़ें: रेप के आरोप पर दाती महाराज ने दी सफाई, कहा- मैं साजिश का शिकार हुआ

टिप्पणियां


दाती महाराज ने कहा कि पीड़ित लड़की के पिता और इन दोनों के मोबाइल नंबरों की जांच से सब साफ हो जाएगा कि सही क्या है. मैं कई बेटियों का पिता हूँ और बेटियों का सम्मान करता हूं. जब भी पुलिस पुलिस जांच के लिए बुलाएगी जरूर जाऊंगा. ध्यान हो कि राजस्थान की निवासी एक पच्चीस वर्षीय युवती ने स्वयंभू बाबा दाती महाराज और उसके चेलों पर उसके साथ बार-बार रेप का आरोप लगाया है. दक्षिणी दिल्ली के फतेहपुर बेरी थाने में युवती ने दाती महाराज के खिलाफ शिकायत दी थी. युवती ने पुलिस को बताया कि वह करीब एक दशक से महाराज की अनुयायी थी.

VIDEO: दाती महाराज के आश्रम पहुंची सीबीआई.


लेकिन महाराज और चेलों द्वारा बार-बार बलात्कार किए जाने के बाद वह अपने घर राजस्थान लौट गई थी. युवती ने आरोप लगाया है कि बाबा की एक अन्य महिला अनुयायी उसे महाराज के कमरे में जबरन भेजती थी. मना करने पर धमकाती थी कि वह सभी से कहेगी कि पीड़िता अन्य चेलों के साथ भी यौन संबंध बनाती है. (इनपुट भाषा से) 



Source link

HIV Positive Boy’s Repeated Rape Termed ‘Classic, Unsolved Mystery’ By Delhi High Court


How the assaulter entered the room, raped the boy remains “unanswered”: Court (Representational)

New Delhi: 

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday acquitted a security guard of a children’s home of the charge of repeatedly raping a seven-year-old HIV positive orphan, observing that the situation remained a “classic, and unsolved locked room mystery”.

Justice C Hari Shankar overturned the trial court’s verdict which had sentenced the man to 10 years in jail, saying it would be a “travesty of justice” to convict him of having committed such an “unsolved” crime.

“…this court is of the view that, in the present case, the evidence marshalled by the prosecution, and relied upon by the additional sessions judge (ASJ), is insufficient to return a finding of guilt, against the appellant, of having committed sexual assault upon the child,” the high court said, allowing the man’s appeal against trial court’s verdict.

The high court, in its 69-page judgement, noted that while the child was HIV positive, accused Amardeep Kujur, a Jharkhand native, was tested negative.

It said there were allegations that the child was sexually assaulted multiple times and the possibility of non-transmission of the HIV virus to the other person would be remote.

The high court disagreed with the trial court’s finding that it was not necessary that the HIV virus would, in every case of sexual contact, be transmitted from partner to partner.

“…the ASJ has ignored the above two facts, apparent from the evidence, i.e., firstly, that the child had suffered mucosal tears in the private parts and, secondly, that the man was alleged to have repeatedly sexually assaulted the child. Sexual contact is, it is well known, the primary mode by which the HIV virus is transmitted,” it said.

In the judgement, the high court said the mystery of how the assaulter entered the room where the minor was sleeping, and raped him day after day, remained “unanswered”.

“The allegation being that the man committed repeated sexual assault on the child, it was totally impermissible for the ASJ to have returned a finding of guilt, without even ascertaining, as and when the offence occurred.”

“The situation, in the present case, remains a classic, and unsolved ‘locked room mystery’, even while the man stands convicted and sentenced (by the trial court). This is entirely impermissible in law,” it said.

The prosecution had said the Child Welfare Committee  sent a letter to Shahbad Dairy Police Station in north west Delhi in February 2013 stating that a report submitted by NGO Child Survival India had alleged a 7-year-old boy was sexually abused and harassed by three minors of a children home in Alipur in Delhi.

During investigation, it was found that the child was allegedly sexually assaulted by the Children Home’s guard who had also threatened the victim not to disclose it to anyone.

The child had alleged that he was sexually assaulted multiple times in the children’s home room where he used to sleep along with several others.

While the child’s father was in jail, his mother had died of HIV and, as there was not nobody to look after him, he was sent to the children home for boys.

When the minor was medically examined, he was found to be HIV positive and handed over to Child Survival India which looked after the children affected by the virus.

The man had claimed he had not sexually assaulted the victim.
 





Source link

Supreme Court To Hear Crucial Rafale Jet Deal Case Today: Live Updates


New Delhi: 

The sensitive pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets, submitted by the Centre in a sealed cover, is scheduled to be examined by the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph will hold a crucial hearing in the case during which the petitioners, who have sought a court-monitored investigation into the deal, will also make submissions.

On Monday, the Centre handed over a 14-page document to the Supreme Court came after discussions between Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Attorney General KK Venugopal, reports said.

The document — provided to a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in a sealed cover — has the approval of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, news agency PTI added.

The petitioners are likely to respond to the contents of the documents in which it has been stated by the government that the deal for 36 Rafale jets were negotiated on “better terms” and the Defence Procurement Procedure laid out in 2013 were “completely followed”.

Here are the LIVE updates on the story:





Source link