Kerala preventing TN from closing holes in Mullaperiyar dam: Jaya

Bengaluru, May 21: The top two food-delivery startups, Swiggy and Zomato, will begin delivering alcohol in some cities starting from today, as they cash in on the high demand for booze during the country's coronavirus lockdown.

India was among the few countries to restrict liquor and tobacco sales as it announced one of the world's strictest lockdowns in March.

Hundreds of people started queuing up at liquor stores earlier this month when the government eased some restrictions, leading the police to resort to baton-charges to disperse crowds in some cases.

The companies will roll out the service in select cities in Jharkhand, starting with Ranchi from today, Swiggy and Zomato said in separate statements.

Swiggy said it was in advanced talks with multiple states to launch the service in more locations, and both firms said the move to allow alcohol orders through smartphones will promote social distancing and customer safety.

"By enabling home delivery of alcohol, we can generate additional business for retail outlets while solving the problem of overcrowding," said Anuj Rathi, vice president of products at Bengaluru-based Swiggy.

The new service also comes as both Swiggy and Zomato face sharp declines in their core business, with restaurants remaining shut during the two-month lockdown, forcing the companies to cut hundreds of jobs to save cash.

News agency reported earlier this month that Zomato was aiming to branch out into delivering alcohol. Swiggy is backed by South African internet group Naspers Ltd, while Ant Financial, an affiliate of Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group Holding Ltd, is a major investor in Zomato.

New Delhi, Jan 7: A fringe right-wing group calling itself the Hindu Raksha Dal has purportedly taken responsibility for the attack on students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in a video posted on social media.

The video, which was posted on social media on Monday and has gone viral since then, shows a man identifying himself as Pinki Chaudhary saying that those who resort  to “anti-national activities” will be treated in the same way that JNU students and faculty were.

He later told news channels that others involved in "anti-national activities" would face similar attacks.

There was no immediate reaction from the police on Chaudhury's claims.

“For several years, JNU has been a bastion of communists and we will not tolerate it. Hindu Raksha Dal, Bhupendra Tomar, Pinki Chaudhury take the responsibility of what has happened in JNU...all of them were our volunteers. Those who cannot do such work for Mother India don't have the right to live in this country,” Chaudhary is seen saying in the video.

“We are always ready to sacrifice our lives for Mother India. We will not tolerate anyone who speaks against the religion,” he added.

Efforts to reach the man were unsuccessful: his phone was switched off.

More than 35 students were injured Sunday when a masked mob went on the rampage, attacking students and professors and vandalising property. The JNUSU has accused the RSS-affiliated ABVP volunteers of attacking the students.

London, Feb 14: Liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya once again asked the Indian banks to take back 100 per cent of the principal amount owed to them at the end of his three-day British High Court appeal on Thursday against an extradition order to India.

The 64-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss, wanted in India on charges of fraud and money laundering amounting to an alleged Rs 9,000 crores in unpaid bank loans, said the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are fighting over the same assets and not treating him reasonably in the process.

“I request the banks with folded hands, take 100 per cent of your principal back, immediately,” he said outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

“The Enforcement Directorate attached the assets on the complaint by the banks that I was not paying them. I have not committed any offenses under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) that the Enforcement Directorate should suo moto attach my assets," he said.

"I am saying, please banks take your money. The ED is saying no, we have a claim over these assets. So, the ED on the one side and the banks on the other are fighting over the same assets,” he added.

Asked about heading back to India, he noted: “I should be where my family is, where my interests are.

"If the CBI and the ED are going to be reasonable, it’s a different story. What all they are doing to me for the last four years is totally unreasonable.”

Lord Justice Stephen Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing, the two-member bench presiding over the appeal, concluded hearing the arguments in the case and said they will be handing down their verdict at a later date after considering the oral as well as written submissions in the “very dense” case over the next few weeks.

On a day of heated arguments between Mallya’s barrister, Clare Montgomery, and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) counsel Mark Summers, arguing on behalf of the Indian government, both sides clashed over the prima facie case of fraud and deception against Mallya.

“We submit that he lied to get the loans, then did something with the money he wasn’t supposed to and then refused to give back the money. All this could be perceived by a jury as patently dishonest conduct,” said Summers.

“What they [Kingfisher Airlines] were saying [to the banks] about profitability going forward was knowingly wrong,” he said, as he took the High Court through evidence to counter Mallya’s lawyers’ claims that Westminster Magistrates Court Judge Emma Arbuthnot had fallen into error when she found a case to answer in the Indian courts against Mallya.

Mallya, who remains on bail on an extradition warrant, is not required to attend the hearings but has been in court to observe the proceedings since the three-day appeal opened on Tuesday. A key defence to disprove a prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation on his part has revolved around the fact that Kingfisher Airlines was the victim of economic misfortune alongside other Indian airlines.

However, the CPS has argued that “there is enough in the 32,000 pages of overall evidence to fulfil the [extradition] treaty obligations that there is a case to answer”. “There is not just a prima facie case but overwhelming evidence of dishonesty… and given the volume and depth of evidence the District Judge [Arbuthnot] had before her, the judgment is comprehensive and detailed with the odd error but nothing that impacts the prima facie case,” said Summers.

At the start of the appeal, Mallya’s counsel claimed Arbuthnot did not look at all of the evidence because if she had, she would not have fallen into the multiple errors that permeate her judgment. The High Court must establish if the magistrates’ court had in fact fallen short on a point of law in its verdict in favour of extradition.

Representatives from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as well as the Indian High Commission in London, have been present in court to take notes during the course of the appeal hearing.

Mallya had received permission to appeal against his extradition order signed off by former UK home secretary Sajid Javid last February only on one ground, which challenges the Indian government's prima facie case against him of fraudulent intentions in acquiring bank loans.

At the end of a year-long extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London in December 2018, Judge Arbuthnot had found “clear evidence of dispersal and misapplication of the loan funds” and accepted a prima facie case of fraud and a conspiracy to launder money against Mallya, as presented by the CPS on behalf of the Indian government.

Mallya remains on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April 2017 involving a bond worth 650,000 pounds and other restrictions on his travel while he contests that ruling.