Rapist gets death sentence, throws bricks at media, snatches police rifle

Bengaluru, Jan 16: Amping up the online payment experience for consumers, Razorpay, the leading full-stack financial services company, today launched a new product, Instant Refunds for businesses.

This new feature activates refunds and credits the customer's source account across payment methods such as credit card, net banking, and UPI within a minute of initiation.

India is one of the fastest-growing online retail markets today. About 71 per cent of internet users in the country purchase products online. Today, the refund process has two major pain points for both the end customer and the business.

First, a delay of five-seven business days for the customer in receiving the money because of multiple intermediaries like the acquiring bank, issuing bank and the networks (VISA/MasterCard/Rupay).

Second, the lack of transparency during the entire refund process for both the customer and the business. This long cycle of processing refunds is a significant problem with every popular payment method in the industry.

By issuing refunds instantly, Razorpay will help businesses retain their customers, build trust through an improved hassle-free payment experience and provide complete transparency on refunds to both the business and the end-user.

This new feature will also reduce the dependence on manpower as every refund issue on an average leads to ten service emails or calls from customer support teams.

"Instant Refunds are the new normal and central to great customer experience. A lot of consumers fail to use online payment methods as they feel getting refunds through an online platform is a very time-consuming task; hence they prefer CoD as the best alternative. Given the technological advancements being made in the fin-tech ecosystem, its fair for customers to expect refunds as fast as possible. A solution like Instant Refunds will not only help build consumer confidence in digital payments but also reduce losses for e-commerce companies where CoD has become an expensive option with more than 50 per cent online transactions made through cash", said Shashank Kumar, CTO & Co-founder of Razorpay.

"Our Instant Refunds feature ensures that the refund is processed at a 3600x faster pace than the normal expected time of five-seven business days. The team is focused on creating new technologies designed to make the entire payment lifecycle hassle-free. We believe this new feature will make customers experience a notch higher, help brands create a competitive advantage, and even make them more profitable", he added.

Razorpay's growth has been uphill, particularly in the last two years. With a 500 per cent growth in 2019, the company has been witnessing a healthy growth rate of 35 per cent month-on-month.

The company also recently launched its corporate credit cards for its partner businesses, RazorpayX current accounts, support for freelancers and homepreneurs, and acquired Opfin, a payroll and HR management software company.

Currently powering payments for over 800,000 businesses including the likes of Indigo, BSE, Thomas Cook, Reliance, SpiceJet, Aditya Birla, Sony, and Oyo, the team plans to increase this count to 1,400,000 by this year. The full-stack financial solutions company expects a 4x growth in its revenue by the end of the next fiscal year.

This story is provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article.

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.