The Supreme Court today directed the Sahara group to furnish details of all its properties in a sealed cover to ascertain the fact as to whether they are sufficient for paying back the entire amount to the investors.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur, however, refused to grant parole to Sahara chief Subrata Roy, who is in jail since March 4, 2014, saying that so far its orders have not been complied with “substantially”.

“We should know about the total assets of the Sahara group. What exactly is the extent of properties, we must know.

Currently, 66 properties of the group are scheduled to go on sale which will generate around Rs 6,000 crore.

“This might be enough for securing Roy’s bail but not to refund the entire money to investors. We want the rest of the properties to be brought into focus so you give us a list of properties,” the bench, also comprising Justices A R Dave and A K Sikri, said.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for Sahara, sought release of Roy on the ground of his “deteriorating” health and the fact that market regulator SEBI has already been authorised to sell 66 properties.

“The court should consider granting parole to him or put his client under house arrest. I am in substantial compliance of the orders of this court. SEBI has the property and the machinery. I am required for compliance of order of this court and I am not required for any offence. At this stage please consider all the factors and grant me parole. My client’s health has been deteriorating and he may not be able to survive another summer in jail,” Dhawan said.

To this, the bench said,”we don’t see substantial compliance unless the money is refunded to the investors. It does not give us pleasure to keep somebody in jail. See, there has to be change in circumstances and there has to be a subsantial compliance of our order.”

When the bench enquired about the total assets of Sahara in India and abroad, Dhawan sought two weeks time to seek instructions and produce the list of properties in a sealed cover to the court.

The matter is listed for hearing on May 11.

At the outset, senior advocate Arvind P Datar, appearing for SEBI, informed the court that the market regulator, in consultation with Justice B N Agrawal, has engaged services of SBI Capital Markets and HDFC Realty to sell properties of the Sahara Group.

He said the selling process of 66 properties will be completed in four months time and the first phase of the sale process would commence next week.PTI

The Supreme Court has sought reply from the Madhya Pradesh government on a plea seeking CBI probe into the alleged disappearance of a UP-based businessman from the state and his production.

A bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh also issued notice to Madhya Pradesh ADGP Purushottam Sharma and two others and sought their response in four weeks.

The plea was filed by one Sachin Diwan whose father has been allegedly missing since March 15, 2016, from Dabra in Madhya Pradesh, where he was engaged in work of supply and commissioning of a ‘jaggery plant’ run by the brothers of Sharma.

“That the father of petitioner (a resident of Muzaffarnagar (UP) is missing since March 15, 2016, from Dabra Madhya Pradesh and there is every apprehension that some untoward has happened with him and/ or he is forcibly kept under confinement by the respondent 2 (Sharma) and his two brothers respondent (3&4),” the plea said.

The plea alleged that the senior police official posted at police headquarters at Bhopal has been completely managing and running the plant ‘Priya Organic Jaggery Pvt Ltd’ and due to dispute over payment of dues for the work done on the plant there are apprehension that the father of the petitioner has been kept under confinement.

“The father of the petitioner became the complete victim of the circumstances and the respondent no. 2 used his complete official powers and big status in the state of MP, where the plant is erected and commenced by the petitoner. All throughout the respondents delayed the payment on one pretext or the other, and also entered into an agreement for another site at Datia also in MP, though till date no payment has been received for new work,” the petition further said.

The petitioner said police at Muzaffarnagar is not entertaining the complaint as they have no jurisdiction over the matter and asked him to approach Madhya Pradesh Police or court.

The plea sought issuance of direction to produce the father of petitioner and probe by an independent agency like CBI to inquire into the matter.PTI

The Allahabad High Court has struck down an order terminating the contract of Magsaysay awardee Sandee Pandey as a visiting faculty member by IIT-Banaras Hindu University, holding that the ex-parte action on charges like anti-national activities which have “serious apersions” violated “the principle of natural justice”.

A division bench comprising Justices V K Shukla and Mahesh Chandra Tripathi yesterday allowed the petition filed by Pandey, who had challenged the order dated January 6,

2016 terminating his contract whereby he had been appointed a “Visiting Professor” in Department of Chemical Engineering and his tenure was to come to an end on July 30 this year.

In the impugned order, Pandey, who is also a Gandhian activist, was told that the decision to terminate his contract was taken at a meeting of the Board of Governors of IIT (BHU) which held him guilty of “cyber crime” and acting “against national interest”.

The Board of Governors had taken cognizance of letter from a student of political science at BHU, who had charged Pandey with “involvement in political activities and being an active sympathizer of naxalites”.

Pandey’s counsel Rahul Mishra argued that “decision in question has been taken by the authorities concerned to silence the voice of the petitioner merely because distinctive ideology was practiced by him”.

Quashing the order, the court remarked that “the case in hand is not a termination simpliciter, rather it is punitive/stigmatic order” in which “heavy words such as commission of cyber crime and acting against national interest have been loosely used”.

“All these allegations are serious in nature and such allegations have serious aspersions on the conduct and character of an incumbent and the way manner in which decision in question has been taken ex-parte can not be approved by us,” the court added.

“Here, in pith and substance, the petitioner has been attributed with misconduct and without holding inquiry, violating the principle of natural justice,” the court said adding that the impugned order “clearly casts stigma on the character of petitioner and is punitive in nature”.

Pandey was awarded the prestigious Magsaysay Award in 2002 in the emergent leadership category.PTI

Introduction of time limit for arbitration proceedings in the new ordinance in this regard will help in quick resolution of disputes, according to former Delhi High Court judge Mukul Mudgal.

“This will help in quick resolution of disputes. If the counsel could prepare the claim in advance and present it in the first sitting itself, a lot of time and sittings can be saved,” he said during a panel discussion on ‘Changing landscape of arbitration in India’ here.

According to the new Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill 2015, an arbitral tribunal is required to render an award within 12 months from the date of appointment of arbitrators, which can be extended for a further period of 6 months by agreement of the parties.

Justice Mudgal also said if an award is not made within this time period, the mandate of the arbitrators automatically terminates and an extension can only be granted by courts.

He termed the amendment well-intended saying it sends a positive message regarding arbitration in India.

Besides him, senior advocate Amal Kumar Ganguli; Devdas Baliga, vice president (legal) Coca-Cola India and Southwest Asia; and Sanjeev K Kapoor, partner (dispute resolution) at Khaitan and Company took part in the discussion.

Ganguli said an arbitration is as good and as bad as an arbitrator.

“But unfortunately, certain arbitrators nominated by the parties act as their counsel,” he added while discussing the new aspects of the legislation.

Baliga said capping of fees in the amended act is a boon to clients as it helps in managing the budget.

“Disputes affect the business. It takes away the focus of the firm as without capping, we would have no idea how much to pay,” he said.

The ordinance provides a cap on the fees to be paid to an arbitrator, barring international commercial arbitrations and institutional arbitrations.PTI

The Kerala High Court today banned the use of high-decibel crackers and fireworks display after sunset in places of worship across the state in the wake of the temple tragedy in Kollam that has claimed 110 lives.

The court asked the state government to examine whether a CBI probe is necessary into the Paravur Puttingal Devi temple fireworks display tragedy on Sunday.

Treating a judge’s letter seeking a ban as a PIL, the bench of Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan and Justice Anu Sivaraman banned the use of sound-generating fireworks between sunset and sunrise across places of worship.

It, however, said that during day time, the sound of explosives cannot exceed the permitted limit.PTI

The Bombay High Court has declined to quash an FIR registered against an editor of a software company website for allegedly using abusive language against a female reporter on the ground that the complaint discloses commission of cognisable offence.

“Prima facie, we find that the complaint discloses commission of a cognisable offence under Section 509 of IPC (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman). The offence is cognisable and bailable,” noted a bench of Justices Naresh Patil and Justice A M Badar recently.

“At this stage, it is not appropriate to observe anything more as investigation is in progress. We expect the investigating agency to probe the matter fairly and complete investigation within three weeks from today,” said the bench while rejecting the editor’s plea to quash the FIR.

During July 20-24, 2015, the complainant had gone with the petitioner and other officers of her company to a hotel for a conference. According to the complaint, the editor allegedly used abusive language during interactions while generally talking to her in front of others.

The complainant alleged those words were used knowingly and with an intention to insult her and she felt ashamed on hearing those utterances.

It was further alleged that on July 22, 2015, a party was hosted, but the complainant, due to her commitments, could not attend it. The complainant was told the petitioner (editor) was not happy as she did not attend the party.

According to the complainant, on July 29, 2015, she received two e-mails from the petitioner, which were abusive in nature. She complained of the same to the HR Head who assured that the CEO was personally looking into the matter.

She further alleged after her complaint to HR, the petitioner started behaving badly with her and and she was allegedly asked to withdraw the complaint and was mentally harassed for not doing so.

On noticing that the management was not taking any step to solve the matter, the complainant said she was constrained to approach the National Commission for Women in New Delhi. The Commission directed her to approach the Amboli Police Station in Mumbai.

The complainant then registered an FIR under Section 509 of IPC and relevant section of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.PTI

Popular Bollywood songs would not be heard in the ongoing T-20 cricket league, with the Delhi High Court restraining BCCI and seven IPL teams from playing them without the permission of the members of a singers’ association.

The Indian Singers Rights Association (ISRA), a body registered as the first copyright society, has moved the high court seeking an injunction against the IPL teams, excluding Delhi Daredevils, by asserting that playing of songs without the nod of members of the body amounts to infringement of “performer’s rights”.

The court asked event management firm – DNA Entertainment Networks Pvt Ltd – and its Manager of Operations to refrain from playing the songs till April 19, the next date of hearing, when the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) would also response to the notice.

“Till the next date, defendants shall remain restrained from in any manner communicating to the public (via radio, TV, mobile phones or any other medium) ISRA’s repertoire, during IPL matches, comprising of performances of all its members (live or recorded), without obtaining a Performer’s Rights Clearance Certificate from ISRA, or doing any other act infringing the members performers’ rights or doing any act violating the members Right to Receive Royalty,” Justice Vipin Sanghi said.

The lawsuit filed by advocate Pravin Anand on behalf of ISRA, whose members include Lata Mangeshkar, Alka Yagnik, Asha Bhosle and Kailash Kher, alleged that till date, neither the IPL teams nor the event management firm has paid royalty for the previous years and not obtained permission from it for playing of songs of its members in this year’s IPL matches.

The IPL teams which have to reply to ISRA’s allegations are Royal Challengers Bangalore, Kolkata Knight Riders, Mumbai Indians, Sunrisers Hyderabad, King’s XI Punjab, Rising Pune Supergiants and Gujarat Lions.PTI

The Supreme Court today appointed two amicus curiae on appeals of four condemned convicts in the December 16 gangrape and murder case against the Delhi High Court order upholding their death sentence.

A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra appointed senior advocates Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Hegde as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter.

While Ramachandran would assist the court in appeals of the convicts –Mukesh and Pawan, Hegde would appear for convicts Vinay and Akshay in the case.

“We must express our concern in the matter. We feel the gravity in the whole issue. Sometimes there are many perceptions and we don’t want to miss anything. We would like to be assisted by the amicus curiae in the matter. We appoint two senior counsels Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Hegde as amicus in the case,” the bench, also comprising Justice V Gopala Gowda and Kurian Joseph, said.

The matter is listed for next hearing on July 18.

On April 4, the court had commenced arguments on the plea of Mukesh and Pawan.

Besides Mukesh and Pawan, the other two convicts, Vinay Sharma and Akshay Kumar Singh, had approached the apex court against the Delhi High Court’s March 13, 2014 verdict, which had termed that their offence fell in the rarest of rare category and upheld the death sentence awarded to them by the trial court.

A 23-year-old paramedic was brutally assaulted and gangraped by six persons in a moving bus in South Delhi and thrown out of the vehicle with her male friend on the night of December 16, 2012. She had died in a Singapore hospital on December 29.

The prime accused, Ram Singh, had been found dead in a cell in Tihar Jail in March 2013 and proceedings against him were abated.

On August 31, 2013, another accused, a juvenile at the time of the crime, was convicted and sentenced to three years in a reformation home. He was released from observation home in December last year.PTI

The Bombay High Court today refused to grant interim stay on the release of Bengali movie ‘Dark Chocolate’, which is based on Sheena Bora murder case, and said it has faith in Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC) to analyse everything before approving the film for release.

A division bench headed by Justice S C Dharmadhikari was hearing a petition filed by Sheena Bora’s step-father Peter Mukerjea, one of the arrested accused in the case, challenging the release of the movie on the grounds that it would violate his fundamental right to have a free and just trial.

Mukerjea had sought the High Court to stay the release of the movie and a direction to the producers to let him see the movie first.

The High Court today, however, said that the movie is not yet ready and will be presented before the CBFC as and when it is ready for release.

“We have complete faith in the CBFC…it works on guidelines. It may analyse the movie and then decide whether to grant certification or not. After the movie is certified for release, you (petitioner) can approach the court again, then we will see if it causes prejudice to you or the trial,” the court said.

Earlier, the makers of the movie told the court that the film is inspired from material available freely in public domain on the murder.

Director Agnidev Chatterjee and the producers said that the aspersion that the accused will not get a proper trial is actually casting perverse aspersions on the very foundation of honesty, integrity, sincerity and dignity of the honourable judiciary in whom the makers of the film and the entire country has unstinted and unconditional confidence and trust.

Chatterjee had earlier informed the court that shooting of the film is complete and post-production was going on. He clarified that it will soon be sent to the Censor Board and then be released.

The movie stars Mahima Chaudhry in the role of Indrani Mukerjea and Riya Sen as Sheena Bora.PTI