SEBI bars NDTV promoters Prannoy and Radhika Roy from dealing in securities market for indulging in insider trading

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), on Friday, barred NDTV promoters Prannoy and Radhika Roy from dealing in the securities market for alleged insider trading that occurred twelve years ago.

SEBI, passed the following orders:

READ ORDER

(a) Mr. Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy shall, jointly or severally, disgorge the amount of wrongful gain of ₹16,97,38,335 as computed in the show cause notice, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from April 17, 2008, till the date of actual payment of disgorgement amount along with interest, within 45 days from the date of coming into force of this order;

(b) Mr. Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy shall be restrained from accessing the securities market and further prohibited them from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the securities market in any manner, whatsoever, for a period of 2 years

"It is clarified that during the period of restraining the existing holding of securities, including the units of mutual funds shall remain under freeze in respect of the aforesaid Notices."

Life term sought for Korean online sex trafficking kingpin Cho Ju Bin, 24

South Korean prosecutors today demanded a life sentence for the mastermind of one of the largest online sex trafficking rings in the country, saying his victims have made tearful pleas that he be severely punished.

Prosecutors also asked the court to order Cho Ju Bin, a 24-year-old indicted for blackmailing women and girls into providing sexual videos and photos to a pay-to-view Telegram chat room, to wear an electronic monitoring device for 45 years during a hearing at the Seoul Central District Court, Yonhap reports.

Prosecutors sought prison sentences of 10 to 15 years for four of Cho's accomplices and a 10-year imprisonment for a 16-year-old accomplice and asked the court to ban them from working with children and youths and at welfare facilities for the disabled and wear electronic bracelets.

Cho's victims have submitted written petitions to the court through their lawyers, saying their damage will never be forgotten and Cho and his accomplices must be strongly punished. One of the victims said in a petition that Cho and his co-conspirators are evil and deserve imprisonment for 2,000 years.

Delivering a final statement during the hearing, Cho said he has regrets about failing to respect human dignity and wants to sincerely repent for his offenses. Cho's accomplices also expressed remorse for their crimes but one of them, surnamed Kang, refused to offer an apology.

The sentencing hearing is slated for November 26.

The prosecutors' demand came one day after they additionally indicted Cho and one of his accomplices for concealing criminal proceeds.

Cho was additionally charged with hiding about 108 million won (US$95,200) in criminal proceeds on 53 occasions, according to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office.

One of Cho's accomplices, identified only as Kang, was also additionally accused of changing 3.5 million won of cryptocurrency earned from the Telegram chat room called Baksabang, Korean for doctor's room, into cash and delivering the money to Cho, the office said.

Cho was earlier indicted for organizing a criminal ring together with 38 accomplices, blackmailing 74 minor and adult victims into filming pornographic content and distributing the sex abuse materials to Baksabang members.

Prosecutors asked the court to merge the additional charges against Cho and Kang into their ongoing trials. They have been expanding their probe into Baksabang and other illegal Telegram chat rooms to punish their members.

Criminal law should not become a tool for selective harassment; High Court abdicated its role, Supreme Court

Ingredient of the offence was not established. The High Court has failed to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC and thus failed to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution."........SC

READ JUDGMENT 

COVID-19 Advocates cannot be asked to appear physically before court: Delhi High Court

Read Judgment 

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in view of the High Court advisories, an advocate cannot be asked to appear physically before court amid COVID-19 pandemic. (VM Singh vs Madan Lal)

In case of  non-appearance  through virtual mode even after being intimated, the court concerned will be free to proceed in accordance with the law, it is added.

An order to this effect was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.

The petitioner before the court was aggrieved by an order passed by a trial court directing the listing of his matter for physical hearing.

While doing so, the trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application for hearing through virtual mode on the ground that lengthy arguments might be advanced by the parties.

The petitioner challenged the order on account of the fact that the family members of his advocate were vulnerable senior citizens and in the present pandemic situation, it would not be possible for the advocate to physically appear before the trial court.

The court was also informed that at present, the only issue before the trial court was restoration of the pending suit.

In view the advisories issued by the High Court, petitioner cannot be asked to appear physically unless the advisory is modified by the High Court, however, recently the High Court has issued a fresh advisory that in case parties do not appear even through virtual mode even after being intimated, the Trial Court is free to proceed in accordance with law.

Right to live with a person of choice, irrespective of religion, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty

READ JUDGMENT 

The Courts and the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. We fail to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together. Decision of an individual who is of the age of majority, to live with an individual of his/her choice is strictly a right of an individual and when this right is infringed it would constitute breach of his/her fundamental right to life and personal liberty as it includes right to freedom of choice, to choose a partner and right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

-Allahabad High Court

Amitabh Bachchan starrer 'Jhund' -

Supreme Court declines to lift stay on release of Amitabh Bachchan starrer 'Jhund'

(M/S Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd v. Nandi Chinni Kumar & Ors)

The Amitabh Bachchan starrer 'Jhund' will not be released for the time being after the Supreme Court  declined to lift the stay granted by the civil court and Telangana High Court against the release of the movie. 

A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde dismissed the appeal by producer of the movie, Super Cassettes challenging an October 19 order of the Telangana High Court restraining the release of the movie in India and abroad.

IPL player questioned at Mumbai airport over luxury watches

Kunal Pandya was questioned for about three hours, after the team arrived around 4.30 pm on a chartered flight, and allowed to leave after the watches were confiscated, 

Two days after his IPL team, Mumbai Indians, retained the high-profile Twenty20 league’s title in the UAE, allrounder Krunal Pandya was stopped and questioned at the Mumbai airport Thursday by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for allegedly trying to bring in undeclared diamond-studded and other luxury watches.

Pandya, 29, was stopped on the basis of a tip-off and found to allegedly have in possession two diamond-studded Audemars Piguet and two Rolex models that were not declared to Customs. The total value of the watches is estimated to be about Rs 1 crore.

"If we don't interfere in this case today, we will walk on a path of destruction", Supreme Court grants bail to Arnab Goswami

The Supreme Court today granted bail to Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, who is currently in judicial custody for his alleged involvement in a 2018 abetment to suicide case.

Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee passed the order in an appeal preferred by Goswami against the  Bombay High Court order which denied him interim bail in the 2018 case.

The Bench held that the Bombay High Court was incorrect in denying Goswami interim bail on November 7. It thus directed for Arnab Goswami and the two other co-accused to be released immediately on a bond of Rs 50,000. The Commissioner of Police has been directed to ensure order is followed immediately.

"If we don't interfere in this case today, we will walk on a path of destruction. If left to me, I won't watch the channel and you may differ in ideology, but constitutional courts will have to protect such freedoms..."

Justice DY Chandrachud

Govt brings news, films, audiovisual content on online platforms under I&B ministry

The government has brought films, audiovisuals, news and current affairs content on online platforms under the domain of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 
According to a notification issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, content made available by online providers such as Netflix will also come under the ministry. 
The notification, signed by President Ram Nath Kovind, said the decision has been taken in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of article 77 of the Constitution, by amending the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and it will come into effect immediately. 
With this, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has the power to regulate policies related to news, audio, visual contents and films available on online platforms. 
“These rules may be called the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Three Hundred and Fifty Seventh Amendment Rules, 2020. They shall come into force at once. 
“In the Government of India (Allocation of Business, 1961, in THE SECOND SCHEDULE, under the heading 'MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING (SOOCHANA AUR PRASARAN MANTRALAYA)' after entry 22, the following sub-heading and entries shall be inserted, namely:- VA. DIGITAL/ONLINE MEDIA. 22A. Films and Audio-Visual programmes made available by online content providers. 22B.

Supreme Court halts execution of US court's $1.2 bn order against ISRO's Antrix

READ ORDER. 

The Supreme court, therefore, kept the execution of the award in abeyance while ordering transfer of Section 34 proceedings from Bengaluru court to Delhi High Court. The apex court also said that the execution of award will remain in abeyance till the Delhi High Court decides the plea for stay which is part of the Section 34 proceedings.

Supreme Court declines stay on publication of book on Asaram Bapu

Read Order

The Supreme Court  declined to interfere with the September 22 order of the Delhi High Court vacating the trial court stay on the publication of the book titl: The True Story Behind Asaram Bapu’s Conviction”.

A three-judge bench of the top court comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna, however, directed the Patiala House court to wrap up trial in the matter by May, 2021.

"Dismissal of this special leave petition will not come in the way of the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the trial court. We direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably by the end of May, 2021,"

Bombay High Court denies anticipatory bail to Muslim man who allegedly divorced his wife by Triple Talaq

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

READ ORDER

Bombay High Court denies anticipatory bail to Muslim man who allegedly divorced his wife by Triple Talaq

The Bombay High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a Muslim man who allegedly divorced his wife by way of triple taalq which is an offence under The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

The order passed by Justice Sarang V Kotwal reads that,

"Considering the gravity of the allegations, the applicant does not deserve protection of anticipatory bail. The applicant left her at her parental house. Her number was blocked by the applicant. This lends corroboration to the allegations that, he had divorced informant illegally in violation of the provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019."

The bail applicant (husband) ahad married the first informant (third wife) after divorcing two of his former wives.

The First Informant Report (FIR) mentioned that the applicant gave an intoxicating drink to the first informant and took private photographs along with videos of the first informant. The FIR further mentioned that the applicant had unnatural sex with her in October 2018.

It was further alleged that the applicant used to harass her and ask her to bring money from her parental house

Last March, one of the daughters of the bail applicant is stated to have come to visit him. The first informant alleges that her husband had asked her to do all the work in the house. When she refused to do so the applicant is alleged to have assaulted her and given her "talaq".

She was left at her parental house. She alleged that the applicant further threatened to leak her private videos and photographs. Thereafter, the applicant is stated to have blocked the first informant’s phone number.

On the basis of this, an FIR was registered against the bail applicant under the sections of the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

The applicant contended that the FIR was based on false allegations. It was further stated that the first informant had assaulted his two minor daughters. It was argued that there were Whatsapp messages sent by the first informant which indicated that she had no grievance against the applicant.

The first informant, however, asserted that the allegations in the FIR were true. She added that she had stayed on with the applicant to save her marriage, before the triple talaq was given.

The Court, ultimately, ruled that there are serious allegations involved in the case which require custodial interrogation. The Judge added that the applicant may establish his defence during the trial. As noted in the order,

"There are serious allegations of inserting rod in her private parts. There are allegations that, indecent photos and videos were recorded. This requires custodial interrogation of the applicant. In this view of the matter, anticipatory bail to the applicant cannot be granted."

The Bombay High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a Muslim man who allegedly divorced his wife by way of triple taalq which is an offence under The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

The order passed by Justice Sarang V Kotwal reads that, 

"Considering the gravity of the allegations, the applicant does not deserve protection of bail. The applicant left her at her parental house. Her number was blocked by the applicant. This lends corroboration to the allegations that, he had divorced informant illegally in violation of the provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019."

 

The bail applicant (husband) ahad married the first informant (third wife) after divorcing two of his former wives. 

The First Informant Report (FIR) mentioned that the applicant gave an intoxicating drink to the first informant and took private photographs along with videos of the first informant. The FIR further mentioned that the applicant had unnatural sex with her in October 2018.

It was further alleged that the applicant used to harass her and ask her to bring money from her parental house

Last March, one of the daughters of the bail applicant is stated to have come to visit him. The first informant alleges that her husband had asked her to do all the work in the house. When she refused to do so the applicant is alleged to have assaulted her and given her "talaq". 

She was left at her parental house. She alleged that the applicant further threatened to leak her private videos and photographs. Thereafter, the applicant is stated to have blocked the first informant’s phone number. 

On the basis of this, an FIR was registered against the bail applicant under the sections of the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

The applicant contended that the FIR was based on false allegations. It was further stated that the first informant had assaulted his two minor daughters. It was argued that there were Whatsapp messages sent by the first informant which indicated that she had no grievance against the applicant.

The first informant, however, asserted that the allegations in the FIR were true. She added that she had stayed on with the applicant to save her marriage, before the triple talaq was given. 

The Court, ultimately, ruled that there are serious allegations involved in the case which require custodial interrogation. The Judge added that the applicant may establish his defence during the trial. As noted in the order, 

"There are serious allegations of inserting rod in her private parts. There are allegations that, indecent photos and videos were recorded. This requires custodial interrogation of the applicant. In this view of the matter, anticipatory bail to the applicant cannot be granted."

Retired employee can file case at place where he belongs: Supreme Court sets aside Patna HC order

Retired employee can file case at place where he belongs: Supreme Court sets aside Patna HC order denying pension claim for lack of jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a retired employee who is receiving pension cannot be asked to go to another court to file a case when he has a cause of action at the place where he resides (Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra v. Union of India).

Supreme Court summons Maharashtra Assembly Secretary for contempt, "intimidating" Arnab Goswami

The Supreme Court on Friday summoned Maharashtra Assembly Secretary for allegedly intimidating Republic TV Editor, Arnab Goswami which the court observed was done with the object of deterring Goswami from moving the Supreme Court. 

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde took strong exception to a letter written by the Secretary to Goswami on October 13 in which Goswami was allegedly berated for producing before the Supreme Court, the minutes of proceedings sent to him by the Speaker and Privileges Committee of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly in relation to a breach of privilege motion. 

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde said that such attempts to prevent citizens from exercising their rights under Article 32 would amount to serious interference with the administration of justice. The Secretary has been asked to be personally present and explain why contempt of court action should not be initiated against him for the October 13 letter. 

The Court also observed that the letter was in the teeth of Article 32 and amounted to a threat to prevent Goswami from moving the Supreme Court. 

"The officer says how did you file this notice in the Supreme Court. How dare he? No one can be stopped from approaching this Court,"

CJI Bode asked Maharashtra 

RERA Act does not bar remedies under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court

READ JUDGMENT 

Section 79 of the RERA Act does not in any way bar the National Dispute Redressal Commission or Consumer Forum under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act from entertaining any complaint.

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not preclude the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) or the Consumer Forum from entertaining any complaint under Consumer Protection (CP) Act. (M/S Imperial Structures Ltd vs Anil Patni and another)

A two-judge bench of the court consisting of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran held that real estate allottees can approach NCDRC apart from authorities under the RERA and there is no provision under RERA which bars initiation of a consumer complaint under CP Act.

SC stays order delisting Kamal Nath as star campaigne

The Bench of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian pulled up the ECI for exceeding its powers by passing the order.

We are staying your order. Who has given the power to you delist a candidate from being a star campaigner or a leader of the party under Section 77 of the Act? We have read it."

CJI SA Bobde