Vikram and his son were produced before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal, a day after they were arrested for alleged default on loan repayment. Defence advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey had raised objections to the jurisdiction of the court, saying the accused should be produced before a sessions court and not before a magisterial court. The court then reserved its order till 2 pm on the issue of jurisdiction.

A consortium of seven banks had extended loans worth Rs 2,919 crore to Rotomac Global Pvt Limited 2008 onwards, according to a CBI FIR. The amount swelled to Rs 3,695 crore, including the accrued interest, because of repeated defaults on payment, the agency said. The CBI initiated the action on the complaint of Bank of Baroda, a member of the consortium led by Bank of India, which had approached the agency fearing that Kothari may flee the country like  Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi.

The principal exposure of the banks regarding the loan is Bank of India Rs 754.77 crore, Bank of Baroda Rs 456.63 crore, Overseas Bank of India Rs 771.07 crore, Union Bank of India Rs 458.95 crore, Allahabad Bank Rs 330.68 crore, Bank of Maharashtra 49.82 crore and Oriental Bank of Commerce Rs 97.47 crore, the agency said. The CBI had filed the case against Vikram, his wife Sadhana and Rahul, and unidentified bank officials.

The post Rotomac pens owner Vikram Kothari, son sent to one-day transit remand appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The move is part of a broader US strategy to pressure Pakistan to cut alleged links to Islamist militants waging chaos in neighbouring Afghanistan.

It comes days after reports that Pakistan had been given a three-month reprieve before being placed on the list, which could hamper banking and hurt foreign investment.

Washington has spent the past week lobbying member countries of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to place Pakistan on the so-called “grey list” of nations that are not doing enough to combat terrorism financing.

Pakistani officials and analysts fear being on the FATF watchlist could endanger its handful of remaining banking links to the outside world, causing real financial pain to the economy just as a general election looms in the summer.

Under FATF rules one country’s opposition is not enough to prevent a motion from being successful. Britain, France and Germany backed the US move.

Islamabad has sought to head off the move by amending its anti-terrorism laws and by taking over organizations controlled by Hafiz Saeed, a Pakistan-based Islamist whom Washington blames for the 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people.

The post Global watchdog puts Pakistan on terrorist financing watchlist: Reports appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Director General (South Asia and SAARC) Mohammad Faisal summoned Singh and “condemned the unprovoked ceasefire violations” by Indian forces on February 22 in Rawalakot/Satwal Sector, the Foreign Office said in a statement.

The firing killed a labourer, working at a civilian crush plant, at Poonch river bank, it said. Faisal said despite calls for restraint, India “continues to indulge in LoC firing”.

The Foreign Office had summoned India’s deputy high commissioner on February 5, 15 and 20. Last month, the Indian envoy was summoned five times on on January 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21.

Faisal said, “the deliberate targeting of civilian populated areas is indeed deplorable and contrary to human dignity, international human rights and humanitarian laws.”

Faisal urged the Indian side to respect the 2003 ceasefire arrangement and investigate the repeated incidents of ceasefire violations, the statement said.

He also urged the Indian side to allow the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to play its mandated role as per the UN Security Council resolutions.

India maintains that UNMOGIP has outlived its utility and is irrelevant after the Simla Agreement and the consequent establishment of the Line of Control.

The post Pakistan summons Indian envoy for fourth time this month appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

It was reported that the Canada-based Khalistani activist, who was convicted in the attempted murder of a Punjab Minister in 1986, was invited to two events organised for Trudeau, in Mumbai and in Delhi. After criticism, Canadian High Commissioner Nadir Patel cancelled the dinner invitation to Jaspal Atwal, a convicted Khalistani terrorist. “The High Commission has rescinded Mr. Atwal’s invitation.? We do not comment on matters relating to the PM’s security?,” the Canadian High Commission said.

Atwal was convicted for trying to kill the then Punjab minister Malkiat Singh Sidhu in Vancouver in 1986. The cancellation comes at a time when Trudeau’s pro-Khalistan approach is being criticised by many including Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh, who raised the issue with the Canadian prime minister during a meeting.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of External Affairs said it is not clear how the Khalistani activist was given visa. “There are two aspects to it, presence and visa. The Canadian side has already clarified that the invitation has been withdrawn. About the Visa, I don’t know how it happened. We will ascertain information from our Commission,” said Raveesh Kumar, MEA Spokesperson.

He also said, “Let us not presume things and decide how he managed to come. This is something which we are trying to find out. In due course, we will be able to come up with a reason that how he managed to come in India.”

The post Justin Trudeau upset with invitation to Khalistani activist appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

A division bench of justices S C Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre said the court has witnessed several traffic constables, standing in corners of roads, talking on their mobile phone instead of manning vehicular movement. “At every nook and corner of the city, one can see these constables standing, playing or talking on their phone or (chatting) with each other. That seems to be their prime duty. The incidental duty is manning the traffic,” it said.

The court made the remarks while hearing a public interest litigation filed by traffic constable, Sunil Toke, alleging rampant corruption in the traffic police department. The bench said, “The traffic policemen are on the spot to man the traffic but now it seems we need someone to keep a watch on them to see if they are performing their duties. This is gross misconduct and dereliction of duty and appropriate action should be initiated.”

The joint commissioner of traffic police and another senior official of the department today filed affidavits before the court in this regard. However, the bench said filing affidavits was not enough and that there has be a concrete change on the ground. “Sincere efforts have to be made to tackle the issue,” the judges said.

The court said the mobile phone numbers of the joint commissioner of traffic police and a senior officer of the department should be publicised so that people can call and complain about bribe-taking and corruption.

The post Bombay HC raps traffic cops for chatting on cell phone while on duty appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

After noting the unequivocal stand of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Air India, Justice Vibhu Bakhru said it was not necessary to examine the question whether the aviation regulator had the jurisdiction to issue the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) in this regard. DGCA and Air India’s response came on a petition filed by a person, questioning a 2010 CAR issued by DGCA, that recognises the concept of overbooking by airlines. The petitioner claimed that that the CAR allows overbooking of flights which cannot be permitted.

The court said a plain reading of the CAR provision relating to denied boarding indicates that the DGCA has recognised that certain airlines follow the practice of overbooking. However, it cannot be read to mean that the aviation regulator permits the airlines to do so, it said. “It certainly cannot mean that such practice has the sanction of law,” it said.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that DGCA has no power to issue directions restricting the compensation payable to passengers, who were denied boarding. However, the counsel for DGCA contended that the petitioner has misread the CAR to mean that the DGCA has countenanced such practice and said it had issued the rules to ensure that the passengers, who are denied boarding, are paid immediate compensation and necessary arrangements for their travel are made by the concerned airline. He said this did not mean that DGCA had permitted the airlines to adopt such practices.

The DGCA counsel said the rules cannot be read so as to cap the liability of various airlines and the amount of compensation mentioned in the CAR indicated only the immediate relief that the airlines were required to provide to the passengers who had been denied boarding. He said this did not bind the passengers in any manner and they are not precluded from taking any action to recover further compensation as available in law.

The Air India’s counsel supported the DGCA’s stand that said the passenger’s right to claim compensation was not restricted by the CAR and the petitioner had not made any claim from Air India for not being permitted to travel from Delhi to Patna on December 12, 2015. The man had claimed that he was scheduled to travel from Delhi to Patna on December 12, 2005 and was due to return on the next day. He booked tickets with Air India in advance on October 28, 2015.

He claimed that when he reached the airport on time on December 12, 2005, he was denied boarding by the airlines on account of overbooking of flights, despite having confirmed tickets and could not reach Patna as scheduled. The court disposed of the petition after the passenger did not seek to press any further relief.

The post Airlines liable to pay passengers for denying boarding: DGCA to Delhi High Court appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The ordinance amends a section of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which will allow authorities to take action against UNSC-proscribed individuals and terror outfits, like sealing their offices and freezing their bank accounts. The move comes ahead of the FATF plenary meeting on February 18, where Pakistan is likely to be “grey-listed” for terrorist financing and money laundering.

Sources in the National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) confirmed the new move, saying the ministries of Interior, Finance and Foreign Affairs as well as NACTA’s Counter Financing of Terrorism (CFT) wing were working together on the matter.

It remains to be seen if the new move saves Pakistan the blushes of being grey-listed again after 2015. A FATF delegation had visited the country in February and reported that Pakistan had fallen short of the requirements by not promulgating legislation to stop money laundering and terrorist financing.

It had also not taken action against “proscribed groups” under UN Security Council Resolution 1267, such as the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation that continued to operate freely and raise funds, the report further mentioned.

Last month, the government had also banned companies and individuals from making donations to the JuD, the FIF and other organisations. Jundullah was the last organisation declared “proscribed” by the government of Pakistan on January 31, 2018 on the NACTA website. Saeed was released from house arrest last November after a Pakistan court said there was insufficient evidence against him. The JuD chief has announced plans to contest this year’s general elections, even though the US and India has pressurised the country to take action against the 26/11 mastermind.

The post Ahead of Paris terror meet, Pakistan moves to ban Hafiz Saeed’s Jamaat-ud-Dawa, FIF appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Issuing notice to the state and Centre, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra ordered, “As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken on the basis of the First Information Report No. 26/2018 dated 27.1.2018 registered at P.S. (Police Station) Shopian under Sections 336, 307, 302 of Ranbir Penal Code against Major Aditya Kumar.” The court was hearing a petition filed by Kumar’s father, Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh, a serving Army officer, seeking quashing of the FIR.

The bench gave the J&K government two weeks to file its reply and asked Attorney General  K K Venugopal to assist it.  “Let a copy of this petition be served on Mr Shoeb Alam, standing counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir, who shall file a reply within two weeks. A copy of the petition be served on the office of the learned Attorney General, who shall represent the Union of India and put forth its stand,” the court said.

The court also issued a notice on another petition which sought a direction to the Centre to set up a committee of experts for conducting a preliminary inquiry before a case is registered against Army personnel, and direction to the state government not to withdraw cases against stone-pelters. Appearing for Lt Col Singh, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said it was a “serious” matter and that “currently an operation was going on”.

Singh contended that the Army personnel were forced to fire at “a savage and violent mob engaged in terrorist activity”, which had hurled stones at an Army convoy and was allegedly about to lynch a Junior Commissioned Officer. The area was “isolated by an unruly and deranged mob who were pelting the said vehicles with stones, causing damage to the military vehicles which are the property of the Government of India, as well as placing the lives of military personnel and military property within the vehicles in grave peril,” the petition said.

Claiming that there was no mala fide intent on the part of the soldiers, the petition stated, “The fire was inflicted only to impair and provide a safe escape from a savage and violent mob engaged in terrorist activity.”  Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, a rights group, described the apex court order as “irregular”, saying that it “appears to favour the accused at the cost of the victims”.

The post Shopian firing: SC bars J&K from coercive action against Major appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Justice Abraham Mathew observed that the FIR, registered by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, won’t stand legal scrutiny under the anti-corruption act as it was registered on a “non-existent” case. Former chief secretary E K Bharath Bhushan, one of the accused, had approached the court for quashing the FIR.

As per vigilance bureau, Chandy and others conspired to help a real estate developer occupy 15 cents of government land at Pattoor in Thiruvananthapuram. The builder allegedly occupied the land owned by Kerala Water Authority (KWA) after fabricating documents and Chandy allegedly acted in favour of the builder disregarding the report from KWA.

While Chandy was CM, IPS officer Jacob Thomas reported to Lokayukta that highest authorities in the executive were involved in the case. After LDF came to power, Thomas, who was made VACB director, lodged the case against Chandy and others even as the issue was pending before Lokayukta.

Last month, while considering the plea to quash the FIR, the court asked Thomas to explain the rationale behind lodging the case. However, Thomas hadn’t turned up before the court, which observed that the officer registered the case based on his assumptions instead of evidence. The court said the government can go ahead to reclaim the revenue waste land, allegedly in custody of the builder.

Bhushan said the verdict had relieved me. “The case left me insulted before the public,’’ he said.

The post Kerala High Court quashes land grabbing case against Oommen Chandy appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The ED had on December 23 filed its final report against Bharti and her husband Shailesh Kumar through advocate Nitesh Rana. The agency had earlier attached a Delhi farmhouse of the couple in connection with its money-laundering probe.

The farmhouse, located at 26, Palam Farms in south Delhi’s Bijwasan area, was attached provisionally under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It belonged to Bharti and Kumar and was “held in the name of M/s Mishail Packers and Printers Private Limited”, the central probe agency had said.

“It was purchased in 2008-09, using Rs 1.2 crore involved in money laundering,” it had alleged.

The agency had raided the farmhouse and a few other locations in July last year as part of its probe against two brothers — Surendra Kumar Jain and Virendra Jain — and others, who were alleged to have laundered several crores of rupees using shell companies.

The Jain brothers, currently on bail, were arrested by the ED under the PMLA. The ED had also arrested Rajesh Agrawal, a chartered accountant who had allegedly mediated and provided a cash amount of “Rs 90 lakh to the Jain brothers in advance so as to invest in M/s Mishail Packers and Printers Pvt Ltd as share premium”.

One of the firms that the arrested duo dealt with was Mishail Printers and Packers Private Limited. Bharti and her husband are alleged to have been directors in this firm in the past.

“The company, M/s Mishail Packers and Printers, was registered at 25, Tughlak Road, New Delhi till the shares were bought by Bharti.

“It was only during 2009-10 that the address was changed to Farm no. 26, Palam Farms, VPO Bijwasan, New Delhi. Bharti and Kumar were the directors of the company during the relevant period,” the ED had said.

The ED had alleged that the Jain brothers, Agrawal and the daughter and son-in-law of the former Bihar chief minister were the “key persons behind the laundering of Rs 1.2 crore”.

The post Court summons Lalu Prasad’s daughter, son-in law in Money Laundering Case appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.