Bajrang Dal leader turned anti-Sangh Parivar crusader Mahendra Kumar dies of cardiac arrest

New Delhi, May 17: Eight of the 10 most valued domestic firms suffered a combined erosion of Rs 1,37,311.31 crore in market valuation last week, with Reliance Industries (RIL) taking the biggest knock.

Only Bharti Airtel and ITC from the top-10 list managed to close the week with gains.

RIL's market cap plunged Rs 65,232.46 crore to Rs 9,24,855.56 crore.

The market valuation of HDFC Bank declined Rs 22,347.07 crore to Rs 4,87,083.88 crore and that of Hindustan Unilever Limited tanked Rs 13,192.26 crore to Rs 4,77,458.89 crore.

ICICI Bank's market cap dropped Rs 9,770.06 crore to Rs 2,08,900.79 crore.

Infosys witnessed a decline of Rs 9,518.84 crore in valuation to reach Rs 2,77,814.09 crore while that of HDFC tumbled Rs 9,370.38 crore to Rs 2,83,293.70 crore.

The m-cap of Kotak Mahindra Bank slipped by Rs 7,805.2 crore to Rs 2,25,327.22 crore.

Tata Consultancy Services' market valuation dipped Rs 75.04 crore to Rs 7,10,439 crore.

In contrast, Bharti Airtel added Rs 13,147.89 crore to its valuation to stand at Rs 3,02,292.43 crore.

ITC's valuation also rose by Rs 7,744.11 crore to Rs 2,02,330.13 crore.

In the ranking of top-10 firms, RIL retained the number one spot, followed by TCS, HDFC Bank, HUL, Airtel, HDFC, Infosys, Kotak Mahindra Bank, ICICI Bank and ITC.

During the last week, the Sensex declined 544.97 points or 1.72 per cent.

Hassan, Feb 26: A 35-year-old poachers died on the spot by his fellow man accidentally, mistaking him as animal at Yedikumari Kaginahere forest areas near Sakaleshpura in the district early hours Tuesday, police sources said.

The deceased has been identified as Harish.

The incident happened when ten poachers went hunting for wild animals in the Yedikumari Kaginahare forest areas.

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.