Karnataka announces 1 day holiday, 3 day mourning over Ananth Kumar's demise

Bengaluru, Jan 15: The Indian startups secured 12.7 billion in funding last year -- a 15% growth compared to 2018 - and Bengaluru startup community topped the list, with securing $5.3 billion across 267 deals, a new report said on Tuesday.

In total, the Indian startups attracted 766 deals in 2019, taking total deal count between 2014-2019 to 5,011, said DataLabs by Inc42 in its annual startup funding report.

Sequoia took the top spot as the most active VC in 2019 with 53 deals, followed by Accel that participated in 38 deals. Blume Ventures, Matrix Partners and Tiger Global were in the top five VCs in 2019.

"The Indian startup economy is entering new decade with over $58 billion in fundraising and 2,984 funded startups between 2014-2019," the findings showed.

With an average of $21 million, the ticket size value of funding increased by 15% in 2019.

Ecommerce and fintech -- with $2.6 billion funding each -- took the top slot with 93 deals and 125 deals, respectively.

"Ecommerce continued to remain at the top by the end of 2019. The growing investor confidence towards sub-sectors such as vertical ecommerce, social commerce and private label businesses is one major factor for ecommerce maintaining its lead," a DataLabs spokesperson said in a statement.

According to the estimates, the funding amount and deal count in 2020 will be around $12.6 billion at a 1% decline from 2019.

"Nevertheless, the investment activity is expected to rise in 2021," said the report.

The data suggests that 2019 had lowest number of startups funded (664) in the last five years, with seed-stage funding deals dropping by 53%, compared to 2016.

With $252 million in funding, seed-stage deal value fell by 44% (compared to 2018) as only 306 seed funding deals were recorded, the report said.

The enterprise tech had a blockbuster year with total funding of $1.15 billion across 114 deals in 2019. The sector recorded a 49% surge in total funding amount, compared to 2018.

The Indian startup economy saw 275 unique VCs participating in funding in 2019, said the report.

Feb 26: The Tamil Nadu government on Tuesday claimed that it prevented Karnataka from discussing the contentious Mekedatu reservoir issue at the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) meeting held in New Delhi.

Besides the representatives of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka at the fifth meeting of CWMA, presided over by Central Water Commission Chairman R K Jain, officials of Kerala and Puducherry also participated.

CWMA member and TN PWD Secretary K Manivasan told reporters after the meeting that the state government prevented Karnataka from discussing the dam issue by pointing out the pending petitions in the Supreme Court against the project filed by the E Palaniswami government.

"We have told participants of the meeting that Mekedatu reservoir will be against the interests of Tamil Nadu and its farmers. Our consistent stand is that it should not be built at any cost. Finally the issue was not discussed in the meeting," Manivasan said.

The Mekedatu reservoir is proposed to be constructed by Karnataka across Cauvery river near Mekedatu, about 110 km from Bengaluru, in Kanakapura taluk.

It was first proposed along with Shivanasamudra hydro power project at Shimsa in 2003 with an intention to use the water for a hydro power station and supply drinking water to Bengaluru city. It was designed to store 67 tmc feet of water.

While Tamil Nadu is claiming that the construction of a balancing reservoir will disturb Cauvery water flow to the state affecting irrigation, Karnataka says the project is basically designed to take care of the drinking water needs of Bengaluru after releasing water to Tamil Nadu as per the quantum specified by the Cauvery water disputes tribunal.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.