Muslim family attacked with iron rods, robbed by 30-35 men on a train in UP

Bengaluru, Jan 14: Days after the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) capped to Rs 35,000 the withdrawal limit of Sri Guru Raghavendra Co-operative Bank, BJP MP Tejasvi Surya on Monday reassured account holders and said Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman was personally monitoring the issue.

Taking to Twitter, Surya said, "I want to assure all depositors of Sri Guru Raghavendra Co-operative Bank to not panic. Hon'ble Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is appraised of matter and is personally monitoring the issue. She has assured the government will protect interests of depositors. Grateful for her concern."

The Bengaluru South MP also attached a letter in his tweet where he had appraised Sitharaman of the situation.

"Finance Minister, after speaking with the RBI governor and other authorities concerned, assured Surya that the government will do everything in its capacity to protect the interests of the depositors and the long term interests of the bank," the letter read.

It said that Surya also reached out to Sitharaman "three times on January 13" after which she reassured him that the "depositors need not panic".

RBI had, on January 10, imposed certain restrictions on Sri Gururaghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha.

"In particular, a sum not exceeding Rs 35,000 of the total balance in every savings bank or current account or any other deposit account may be allowed to be withdrawn subject to conditions stated in the above RBI directions," the notification said.

The regulatory body said that the bank will continue to undertake banking business with restrictions until its financial position improves.

"These directions shall remain in force for a period of six months from the close of business of January 10 and are subject to review," it said.

The bank has been restricted from granting or renewing any loans and advances, make any investment, incur any liability including borrowal of funds and acceptance of fresh deposits, disburse or agree to disburse any payment whether in discharge of its liabilities and obligations or otherwise, enter into any compromise or arrangement and sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any of its properties or assets except.

Mumbai, Feb 8: Anil Ambani, the brother of Asia’s richest man has pleaded poverty in his dispute with three Chinese banks seeking $680 million in defaulted loans.

“The value of my investments has collapsed,” Anil Ambani said, according to a court filing by the banks in a London lawsuit.

“The current value of my shareholdings is down to approximately $82.4m and my net worth is zero after taking into account my liabilities. In summary, I do not hold any meaningful assets which can be liquidated for the purposes of these proceedings.”

The lawsuit was filed by three state-controlled Chinese banks which argue that they provided a loan of $925 million to Ambani’s Reliance Communications Ltd. in 2012 with the condition that he personally guarantee the debt. The comments were disclosed on Friday as Ambani sought to avoid depositing hundreds of millions of dollars with the court ahead of a trial.

The embattled Indian tycoon says that while he agreed to give a non-binding “personal comfort letter,” he never gave a guarantee tied to his personal assets -- an “extraordinary potential personal liability.”

The 60-year-old is the brother of Mukesh Ambani, who’s worth $56.5 billion and is the wealthiest man in Asia. Anil, on the other hand, has seen his personal fortune dwindle over recent years, losing his billionaire status. His Reliance Communications filed for bankruptcy last year.

The banks asked Judge David Waksman to force Ambani to put up $656 million into the court’s account.

Representatives for Ambani’s Reliance Group said they couldn’t immediately comment. They said the group will issue a statement once the court issues the final order.

Ambani’s lawyer, Robert Howe, said the court shouldn’t order his client to make a payment he can’t make. The tycoon argues that an order requiring him to do so would hinder his ability to defend himself in the case, Howe said.

“There’s no evidence of some giant pot of gold that he can pull $1 million, let alone $10 million, let alone $100 million,” Howe said.

Bankim Thanki, an attorney representing Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China, said in a filing that Ambani’s statements are “plainly a yet further opportunistic attempt to evade his financial obligations to the lenders.”

Ambani was caught up in another legal wrangle last year when India’s Supreme Court threatened him with prison after Reliance Communications failed to pay Rs 5.5 billion ($77 million) to Ericsson AB’s Indian unit. The judges gave him a month to find the funds, and his brother, Mukesh, stepped in just in time to make the payment.

Anil said in a filing that he recognized that the judge would want to know if he could satisfy any order to put up funds from outside resources, including his family.

“I can confirm that I have made enquiries but I am unable to raise any finance from external sources,” he said. Judge Waksman had said in an earlier ruling that he believed Ambani’s defence would be shown to be “opportunistic and false.”

Ambani’s lawyer told the judge that as a result of the comments the tycoon’s relatives were unlikely to lend any funds.

There is a “very substantial risk they will never get it back,” Howe said.

Mysuru/Chamarajanagara, Apr 3: In order to prevent the transmission of Novel Coronavirus though overcrowding, the central jails in Mysuru and Chamarajanagar have begun releasing some of their inmates.

As many as 55 undertrials and convicts were released from Mysuru jail since the last two days, while 18 were released from the prison in Chamarajanagar. The jail inmates had been released on interim bail, for a period of two months.

While the undertrials were facing charges that involved a maximum prison term of seven years, the convicts were facing criminal miscellaneous cases of the family court. Most of the convicts released were prisoners who had not paid the maintenance costs ordered by the family courts in divorce cases.