Gandhi, Nehru saw Subhas Chandra Bose as threat to their positions, tweets Subramanian Swamy

New Delhi, May 9: Three promoters of Ram Dev International, recently booked by the CBI for allegedly cheating a consortium of six banks to the tune of Rs 411 crore, have already fled the country before the State Bank of India reached the agency with the complaint, officials said on Saturday.

The CBI had recently booked the company engaged in export of Basmati rice to the West Asian and European countries and its directors Naresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Sangita on the basis of complaint from the State Bank of India (SBI), which suffered the loss of more than Rs 173 crore, they said.

The company had three rice milling plants, besides eight sorting and grading units in Karnal district with offices in Saudi Arabia and Dubai for trading purposes, the SBI complaint said.

Besides SBI, other members of consortium are Canara Bank, Union Bank of India, IDBI, Central Bank of India and Corporation Bank, they said.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not carry out any searches in the matter because of the coronavirus-induced lockdown, the officials said.

The agency will start the process of summoning the accused, incase they do not join the investigation, appropriate legal action will be initiated, they said.

According to the complaint filed by SBI, the account had become non-performing asset (NPA) on January 27, 2016.

The banks conducted a joint inspection of properties in August and October, nearly 7-9 months later only to find Haryana Police security guards deployed there, they said.

"On inquiry, it has been come to notice that borrowers are absconding and have left the country," the complaint filed on February 25, 2020, after over a year of account becoming NPA, the officials said.

The complaint alleged that borrowers had removed entire machinery from old plant and fudged the balance sheets in order to unlawfully gain at the cost of banks'' funds, it said.

New Delhi, Feb 3: Union minister Prakash Javadekar on Monday said Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had called himself an "anarchist" and there is not much of a "difference between an anarchist and a terrorist".

His remarks come a few days after the Election Commission issued a show cause notice to BJP MP Parvesh Verma for allegedly calling Kejriwal a "terrorist".

Addressing a press conference here, Javadekar raked up the issue of Kejriwal "staying a night at the Moga residence of Khalistan Commando Force chief Gurinder Singh during the Punjab Assembly polls".

"You knew it was a militant's house. Still, you stayed there. How much more evidence do you need?" he said.

"Kejriwal is now asking with a sad face, 'am I a terrorist?' You are a terrorist and there is a lot of evidence to prove that. You yourself had said you are an anarchist. There is not much of a difference between an anarchist and a terrorist," the senior BJP leader said.

Flanked by Delhi BJP chief Manoj Tiwari and Union minister Anurag Thakur, Javadekar said the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was supporting Shaheen Bagh, where slogans of "Assam ko azadi", "Jinnah wali azadi" were being raised. "Supporting such slogans is also terrorism".

He alleged that Kejriwal stood with Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where "anti-India slogans were raised, and did not grant sanction to prosecute (those who raised the slogans)".

"On January 26, you threatened that you would stop their prosecution. How much more proof do you need? The people of Delhi now know that you are the chief of liars, you are an anarchist and sympathise with terrorists.

"You are supporting Shaheen Bagh, JNU, the slogans being raised there and all such anarchists...then you are definitely a terrorist. This is your identity, no matter how innocent face you make," he said.

On Thursday, the Election Commission had issued a show cause notice to Verma, the BJP MP from West Delhi, for allegedly calling Kejriwal a "terrorist".

He was earlier barred from campaigning for 96 hours (four days) for making controversial remarks at a poll meet recently.

An emotional Kejriwal had later said it was for the people of Delhi to decide whether they consider him their son, brother, or a terrorist.

"How have I become a terrorist? I've arranged for medicines...did so much for the needy. I've never thought of myself or my family... am ready to give my life for the nation," he had said at a press conference.

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.