Rotomac Kothari owes various banks Rs 3,695-cr: CBI files FIR

Mumbai, Mar 6: A Rolls Royce car, paintings of famous artists M F Hussain and Amrita Sher-Gil, designer handbags and other luxury items belonging to fugitive diamond jeweller Nirav Modi garnered over Rs 51 crore in the second auction conducted on Thursday.

As many as 40 items went under the hammer on Thursday, which marks the completion of auction of assets seized by the Enforcement Directorate.

The auction was conducted by Saffronart on behalf of the deputy director, Enforcement Directorate, and was expected to garner a minimum of Rs 40 crore in proceeds.

A collection of 112 prized assets of Modi were put up for live and online auctions from March 3 to 5, which included major artworks by contemporary and modern Indian artists, designer handbags, luxury watches and cars.

While the online auction on March 3-4 garnered Rs 2.04 crore against the expected proceeds of Rs 52 lakh, the live auction on Thursday garnered Rs 51.41 crore more.

These assets, seized by the ED, were put on auction in an attempt to recover a part of the dues Modi owes to various banks.

According to officials from Saffronart, the ED would get Rs 53.45 crore from the proceeds of these two auctions.

The lots that went under the hammer included legendary painter MF Hussain's painting of 'Battle of Ganga and Jamuna- Mahabharata 12' which went for a record 12 crore, the highest price received so far for the painter's work.

Amrita Sher-Gil's rare 1935 painting 'Boys with Lemons', which was auctioned for the first time, sold for Rs 15.7 crore ($2.24 million).

V S Gaitonde's tranquil 1972 painting was sold for Rs 9.52 crore while Manjit Bawa's Untitled 1992 sold for Rs 6.16 crore. Modi's Rolls Royce Ghost witnessed a high demand, selling for twice its estimate at Rs 1.68 crore ($240,000).

Lucknow, Jul 24: A special CBI court on Friday recorded the statement of veteran BJP leader LK Advani in the Babri mosque demolition case.

The statement of the 92-year-old former deputy prime minster was recorded through video conferencing in the court of special Judge S K Yadav.

On Thursday, the court recorded the statement of BJP veteran Murli Manohar Joshi in the case. 

Mumbai, Jan 19: After Kerala and Punjab, the Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) government is also mulling over a resolution against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in Maharashtra Assembly.

Speaking to news agency, Congress spokesperson Raju Waghmare said: "Our senior party leader Balasaheb Thorat has also shared his stand on the CAA. Even Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has said that we are against the CAA. As far as the resolution against CAA is concerned, our senior leaders of MVA will sit together and decide."

If this happens, then Maharashtra will be the third state to pass a resolution against CAA, which grants citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Emphasising that CAA is 'unconstitutional,' senior lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal has said that every state Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek CAA's withdrawal.

He added that it would be problematic to oppose the CAA if the law is declared to be 'constitutional' by the Supreme Court.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal tweeted.

Earlier speaking at the Kerala Literature Festival on Saturday, the Congress leader had said that constitutionally no state can say that it will not implement the amended Citizenship Act, as doing so will be "unconstitutional".

Kerala government has also approached the Supreme Court against the CAA following the passage of a resolution against it in the state Assembly.

Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh has also announced that the Congress state government is going to join Kerala in the Supreme Court in the case.