Lover sets 17-yr-old girl on fire for refusing to come out of her house

Bengaluru, Apr 19: A recent government order prohibiting congregations, Ramadan prayers is discriminatory and needs to be withdrawn, JD(S) MLC B M Farookh has demanded.

In a letter to the chief secretary, Farookh pointed out that the order contained certain conditions such as restriction of the use of public address system and delivering Azan in low decibels, which had nothing to do with the prevention of Covid-19 disease.

“These days, Azan includes a call for the community to pray at home and does not offer namaz at mosque. The order also prohibits preparation and distribution of porridge, which has always been taken up in the interest of the poor. The High Court has noted that the relief distribution by NGOs or individuals should not be prevented and the state machinery has to coordinate the same by ensuring social distancing. The ban on distribution of porridge by mosques amounts to discrimination. The order needs to be withdrawn or revisited,” he wrote in his letter.

Further, observing that a religious fair was conducted in Kalaburagi recently, in violation of the government’s social distancing norms, Farookh sought the government to ensure that social distancing norms are enforced with regard to festivals of all communities without discrimination.

Bengaluru, Feb 2: The monthlong budget session beginning on Monday, which will mark BS Yediyurappa’s maiden budget in his fourth term as chief minister, is expected to be a fiery one.

The opposition JD(S) and Congress have already threatened to stall proceeding until BJP legislator Basangouda Patil Yatnal apologises for his controversial remarks against freedom fighter and centenarian HS Doreswamy. Yatnal had called him a fake and a Pakistani agent.

Disruptions are also likely to pose a threat to speaker Vishweshwar Hegde Kageri’s novel idea of having a two-day discussion on the Constitution of India to commemorate 70 years of the country’s Independence.

Both opposition parties have scheduled legislature party meetings early on Monday and they could coordinate on issues on the floor of the house to put the BJP — especially Yediyurappa — on the backfoot.

Yatnal is not known as a “hardliner”, but his attack on Doreswamy has garnered support from several ministers including CT Ravi, KS Eshwarappa and V Somanna. Yediyurappa may have a hard time defending his party’s line.

The BJP is yet to schedule its legislature party meeting, but MLAs suggest the party will allow the issue to be raised and debated in the legislature. “Both have expressed their point of view. Let there be a discussion on the matter, but not allowing the house to function will only be a waste of the state’s time and money,” said deputy chief minister CN Ashwath Narayan.

Besides the Doreswamy issue, Yediyurappa will also deliver his reply — postponed from February 20 — to the debate on the governor’s address. The issue of student Amulya Leona Narona’s arrest on a charge of sedition, the Bidar sedition case involving a parent of a school student, pro-Pakistan writings on walls in places in north Karnataka, introduction of NPR and the anti-CAA stir is also likely to feature during the lengthy session.

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.