Asked to keep away from church duties after taking part in protest against bishop: Nun

Bengaluru, Apr 18: Virtually defending the Gowda family for conducting a marriage reportedly defying lockdown restrictions, Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Tuesday said it was performed in a simple manner and well within their limits, "for which they are to be congratulated."

"All the necessary permissions were given and the marriage was performed in a simple manner. There is no need to discuss about it. They had done it well within their limits for which I congratulate them," Yediyurappa said to a query from reporters during the post-COVID-19 briefing.

Scores of people had thronged a farmhouse on Friday to get a glimpse of the wedding of former Prime Minister and JD (S) supremo, H D Deve Gowda's grandson Nikhil Kumaraswamy, ignoring appeals not to visit the venue in view of the ongoing lockdown to check the COVID-19 outbreak. Nikhil, son of former Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy, tied the nuptial knot with Revathi, the grand-niece of former Karnataka housing minister M Krishnappa.

The marriage was solemnised at Kumaraswamy's Kethaganahalli farmhouse at Bidadi in the neighbouring Ramanagara district, a JD(S) stronghold. Kumaraswamy had taken to Twitter after the marriage, thanking his party MLAs, leaders and workers for staying away from the event and blessing his son from their houses. In a series of tweets, he had said social distancing was maintained and all precautionary measures were taken throughout the event.

BJP had hit out at the JD(S) first family for flouting the norms, alleging that at least 150 to 200 vehicles were given permission to attend the event, that too at at time when social workers wanting to serve the badly affected poor people were not being allowed to ply any form of transport JD(S) leader N H Konareddi and MLC T A Sharavanna had denied the charges, saying the union government guidelines had been followed and that social distancing was maintained.

Amidst heightened border tensions between Indian and China, senior BJP leader and Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan's two year old tweet comparing his party with Communist Party of China started going viral. 

The tweet, dated 26 June, 2016 reads: "Communist Party of China & BJP have done numerous works in social field. This way, there is tremendous similarities between the two parties." (sic)

Twitterati dug up this tweet after over 20 Indian Army personnel, including a colonel, were killed in a clash with Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley in eastern Ladakh earlier this week.

Soon after Chouhan's tweet went viral, netizens took to the micro-blogging site and slammed BJP. One user said, "Interesting comment by Hindutva ITSELF to recognise how similar they are with China. No doubt. Both believe in Dragon Throne .... and brutal absolute control." Another user said, "No wonder the BJP & China both agree that PLA never crossed into Indian territory."

No wonder the BJP & China both agree that PLA never crossed into Indian territory. https://t.co/fjguCNdGfc

— Pierre Fitter (@pierrefitter) June 18, 2020

Interesting comment by Hindutva ITSELF to recognise how similar they are with China. No doubt. Both believe in Dragon Throne .... and brutal absolute control. https://t.co/zDbmaMwBMH

— Devdutt Pattanaik (@devduttmyth) June 18, 2020

BJP EXPOSED!#IndiaChinaFaceOff https://t.co/f9WaZTYWVZ

— Youth Congress (@IYC) June 17, 2020

Indeed. Both deceive and betray. https://t.co/VR8brc9pbt

— Dushyant (@atti_cus) June 17, 2020

Always held that both these ideologies have "tremendous similarities". Best to be equidistant from both. https://t.co/hrvd07IQQV

— Rachit Seth (@rachitseth) June 17, 2020

didn't know this, no one talks of these similarities. https://t.co/y0TKXAPa70

— S lrfan Habib (@irfhabib) June 18, 2020

What!!! I never saw this before. https://t.co/gQLby93tIk

— Sanjukta Basu (@sanjukta) June 18, 2020

Mangaluru, May 21: The Supreme Court has awarded Rs 7.64 crore compensation to the next of kin of a man who was killed in a crash-landing of Air India Express Flight 812 from Dubai in Mangalore on May 22, 2010. The accident killed 158 out of 166 passengers on board.

The family of the 45-year-old Mahendra Kodkany, which include his wife, daughter and son, were earlier granted Rs 7.35 crore as compensation by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This compensation will now get enhanced after adding 9 per cent interest per annum (on the amount yet to be paid), to be paid by Air India.

Kodkany was the regional director for the Middle East for a UAE-based company. The aircraft overshot the runway and went down a hillside and burst into flames.

A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said: "The total amount payable on account of the aforesaid heads works out to Rs 7,64,29,437. Interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum shall be paid on the same basis as has been awarded by the NCDRC. The balance, if any, that remains due and payable to the complainants, after giving due credit for the amount which has already been paid, shall be paid within a period of two months."

The apex court noted that in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of an employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. The top court said: "We are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with the NCDRC in making a deduction of AED (UAE currency) 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly, and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons."

The top court observed that the deceased was evidently, a confirmed employee of his employer. "We have come to the conclusion that thirty per cent should be allowed on account of future prospects", added the court.

The top court noted that if the amount which has been paid by Air India is in excess of the payable under the present judgement, "we direct under Article 142 of the Constitution (discretionary powers) that the excess shall not be recoverable from the claimants," said the court.