Free UPSC coaching for minorities

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.

Bengaluru, Apr 23: The Karnataka government on Wednesday promulgated 'The Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Ordinance 2020' that provides the state with a power to seal borders, restrict essential services and punish those attacking public servants and damaging public property.

The Ordinance comes after violence in Padarayanapura when the police and BBMP officials were attacked while they tried to take some secondary contacts of a deceased COVID-19 patient into quarantine on April 19.

The Ordinance, which was promulgated after the Centre's guidelines in this regard, said, "The offender shall be liable for a penalty of twice the value of public or private property damaged as determined by the Deputy Commissioner after an inquiry."

It further said that if the penalty is not paid by the offender, then the amount shall be recovered under provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner can even attach the property of such offender in due course.

Also, abetment of offence would attract imprisonment of up to two years and a penalty of Rs 10,000 or both.

"No person shall commit or attempt to commit or instigate, incite or otherwise abet the commission of offence to cause loss or damage to any public or private property in any area when restrictions and regulations are in force to contain any epidemic disease," the Ordinance said.

Whoever contravenes such provision shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to Rs 50,000, it added.

On Wednesday, the Centre brought an Ordinance to end violence against health workers, making it a cognisable and non-bailable offence with imprisonment up to seven years for those found guilty.

"We have brought an Ordinance under which any attack on health workers will be a cognisable and non-bailable offence. In the case of grievous injuries, the accused can be sentenced from six months to seven years. They can be penalised from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakhs," Union Minister Prakash Javadekar briefed media after Cabinet meeting.

Javadekar said that an amendment will be made to the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and ordinance will be implemented.
This comes amid nationwide lockdown in the wake of COVID-19.

Udupi, Jul 14: Kundapura police in Karnataka have booked a case against a businessman who had violated home quarantine rules as many as 163 times.

Accused Sahab Singh had arrived at his rented house at Koteshwara from Mumbai on June 29. He was asked to remain quarantined in his house till July 13. 

However, he was found loitering and visiting hotels in Udupi. Officials tracked his movement through mobile GPS. He breached the quarantine period 163 times. 

Following the violation, Flying Squad officer N G Bhat filed a complaint against Singh in Kundapura Police Station under IPC Sections 269, and 270.