UP govt preparing plan to open shelters for stray cows: Yogi

London, May 11: Fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi's five-day extradition trial over the nearly USD2 billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case is set to begin in London's Westminster Magistrates' Court today.

The London High Court rejected Nirav Modi's bail plea in Punjab National Bank (PNB) bank fraud case for the fifth time in early March.

Modi, the prime accused in the PNB fraud case, is currently lodged at Wandsworth prison in south-west London and is wanted for his alleged role in the Rs 13,570 crore loss caused to the Punjab National Bank (PNB) along with his uncle, Mehul Choksi.

Modi, 48, was arrested in March last year by Scotland Yard in connection with the case.

Modi was remanded in custody till February 27, 2020, after he appeared before a UK court on Thursday via video link from his London prison.

The latest bail hearing followed further assurances by Modi, including an increase in the amount of security he had offered as a guarantee as well as stricter bail conditions.

On his last bail application, Modi offered USD 4 million as a security guarantee in return for bail, an offer that was rejected by judges who ruled that there was a real risk that Modi would flee the UK to a country which has no extradition treaty with India.

At the same hearing, the judge ruled that there was "strong evidence" that Modi had engaged in "witness intimidation" and destroying evidence.

Given the seriousness of such allegations, it was all but certain that the latest bail application would be rejected.

Modi's lawyers had contended that their client was being held in difficult conditions at Wandsworth prison and had also claimed that his mental health was deteriorating as a result of his incarceration.

However, ruling at the High Court today, Justice Ian Dove said there was a "clear need for this application to be refused in the present circumstances."

It comes just days after the second sale of assets belonging to Modi valued at millions of dollars.

The items include a luxury Rolls Royce car, a Patek Philippe watch and a painting by the renowned Indian artist Amrita Sher-Gil valued at USD 2.5 million but expected to fetch considerably more.

Meanwhile, Nirav's brother Neeshal Modi, who is also one of the co-conspirators in the PNB scam, has written to Enforcement Directorate, distancing himself from his brother's actions and said that he had no knowledge of it.

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.