Hindu family coverts to Islam after facing social boycott

Mar 11: Two activists of Sangh Parivar have been arrested by the police in Tamil Nadu’s Coimbatore for hurling a petrol bomb at a mosque in Ganapathy on March 5.

The miscreants had hurled petrol bombs at the front gate of Hidayathul Sunnath Jamath Mosque at Vedhambal Nagar near Ganapathy in Coimbatore around 1 am on March 5. Since the bomb did not explode, nobody was injured in the incident.

Following a complaint from the Secretary of the Jama’ath, the police had formed three separate teams to nab the miscreants.

Based on tip-offs, the police detained BJP member Pandi (41) and VHP member Akhil (23), both from Rathnapuri in Coimbatore for inquiry.  The duo has also been remanded to judicial custody.

According to a statement by the Coimbatore police, the accused told the police that they hurled petrol bomb at the mosque to protest against the attack against Anand, a Hindu Munnani functionary a few days ago. The accused also reportedly told the police that they were planning to create more chaos.

Madukkarai Anand, the District Secretary of Hindu Munnani was attacked on March 4, while he was returning home after participating in a pro-CAA dharna organised by the BJP and allied parties in Gandhipuram.

He was allegedly followed by men on two motorbikes, who attacked him with rods. Anand suffered head injuries in the attack and was admitted to a hospital. The Podanur police registered a case for attempt to murder based on a complaint and had also formed special teams to nab the accused. However, no one has been apprehended in that case till now.

Based on the statements given by the accused, the police arrested the two men, seized the two-wheeler they used, two cell phones and the things they used to manufacture the petrol bomb.

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.

Dubai, Jul 25: The founder of NMC Health, BR Shetty, has had a worldwide freezing order placed on his assets at the request of a lender that claims he has defaulted on a loan of more than $8 million (Dh29.4m).

The order was granted to Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) last month ahead of a claim filed at the DIFC Courts against Mr Shetty, New Medical Centre Trading and NMC Healthcare.

The lender said in its claim they “are jointly and severally liable” for the repayment of money initially secured through a credit agreement in December 2013 and renegotiated in December last year. Credit Europe Bank is an Amsterdam-headquartered institution specialising in trade and commodities finance with operations in nine countries.

The credit agreement was guaranteed by two security cheques which the bank said in its claim were signed by Mr Shetty – one drawn on his personal account and another on the account of New Medical Centre Trading – that have been "dishonoured upon presentation due to insufficient funds".

The bank claimed Mr Shetty “has now fled the jurisdiction of the UAE to India” and that there was a risk of his “substantial” assets in the Emirates being dissipated.

The assets frozen include properties in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, as well as shares in NMC Health, Finablr, BRS Investment Holdings and other companies. It allows for up to $7,000 per week to be spent on “ordinary living expenses and reasonable sum[s] on legal advice and representation”, a DIFC Courts document granting the freezing order shows.

Credit Europe Bank declined to comment when contacted by The National, stating it does not comment on ongoing litigation proceedings. Representatives for Mr Shetty and for NMC Healthcare, which is now being run by administrators Alvarez & Marsal, also declined to comment.

NMC Healthcare was founded by Mr Shetty in 1975 and grew from a single hospital into the UAE’s biggest privately-owned healthcare operator, which employed 2,000 doctors and 20,000 other staff. The company was listed on the London stock exchange and at its peak was valued at £8.58 billion (Dh40bn). However, its shares slumped after short seller Muddy Waters Research issued a report in December 2019 alleging the company had inflated its cash balances, overpaid for assets and understated its debts. This led to a string of damaging revelations by the company, including the fact that its debt was materially higher – at $6.6bn – than the $2.1bn on its balance sheet. NMC Healthcare was placed into administration in April by its biggest creditor, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, but its UAE businesses continue to trade as a going concern.

Mr Shetty said in a statement issued in April that he has been a victim of fraud committed by "a small group of current and former executives” at companies owned by him. He said bank accounts were created in his name and transactions were made without his knowledge, and that loans, cheques and bank transfers were also fraudulently guaranteed in his name using his forged signature.

In response to the claim filed by Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) at the DIFC Courts, Mr Shetty says he did not personally guarantee loans made to NMC Trading or NMC Healthcare and that the signatures used on cheques guaranteeing the loans are forgeries. His defence cites the opinion of “Dr Al Bah, an independent, experienced and qualified forensic document examiner”, that someone other than Mr Shetty signed the lending agreements and cheques.

An application by NMC Trading and NMC Healthcare to the DIFC Courts to have the claim against it heard in private for fear of triggering claims by other lenders – the group owes money to around 80 local, regional and international lenders – was dismissed, given that the appointment of administrators at the group and allegations of fraud at the company are already in the public domain.

Both companies have indicated to DIFC Courts that they intend to contest the claim against them.