Karnataka heading for fixed load-shedding

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.

Belgaum, May 6: A police constable engaged in security duty at the Belgaum District Collector's bungalow committed suicide by shooting himself on Wednesday morning.

The deceased was identified as Prakash Gurvannavar (32) who was a native of Ambadgatti village in Kittur taluka in the Belgaum district.

Upon receiving information about the incident, Commissioner of Police Lokesh Kumar rushed to the spot.

Further investigation is underway.

New Delhi, Mar 6: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking framing of a proper mechanism to deal with alleged misuse of the sedition law by the government machinery. A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar dismissed the plea filed by a social activist and said it was open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

At the outset, the apex court told advocate Utsav Singh Bains, appearing for the petitioner, that he could not seek quashing of an FIR in a sedition case filed against the management of a Karnataka school for allegedly allowing students to stage an anti-CAA and anti-NRC drama.

Bains told the bench that he was not just pressing for a prayer to quash the FIR but the petitioner has also sought a direction for framing of a proper mechanism to deal with the alleged misuse of the sedition law.

"Let the affected party come and we will hear them. Why it should be done at your instance," the bench said, refusing to entertain the petition.

The petition had sought quashing of the FIR against the principal and other staff of the Shaheen School at Bidar who have been booked under sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code.

The plea had also sought an apex court direction for a proper mechanism to deal with alleged government misuse of the sedition law.

Section 124A of the IPC says that "whoever brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards... the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life...".

The plea had sought a direction to the Centre and the Karnataka government "to quash the FIR registered in connection of seditious charges against the school management, teacher and a widowed parent of a student for staging a play criticising CAA, NRC and NPR."

The petition had claimed that the police "also questioned students, and videos and screenshots of CCTV footage showing them speaking to the students were shared widely on social media, prompting criticism."

The drama was staged on January 21 by students of the fourth, the fifth and the sixth standard.

The sedition case was filed based on a complaint by social worker Neelesh Rakshyal on 26 January.

The complainant alleged that the school authorities "used" the students to perform a drama where they "abused" Modi in the context of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.