Veera Rani Abbakka Utsav to be held in Delhi between March 11-18

Mumbai, May 19: Even as banks in United Arab Emirates are trying to trace NMC founder BR Shetty, a prominent bank in India is seeking to recover loans worth Rs19.13 billion from him and his companies. 

A local court has also barred him and his wife from selling or transferring some properties while it hears the case.

In the court filing, the Bank of Baroda said Shetty had an obligation to handover the title deeds of the 16 properties and mortgage the assets with the bank.

The 16 properties in several Indian cities including Bengaluru were among guarantees put up by Shetty and his wife against the Rs19.13 billion ($253 million) loans, according to a May 16 court order seen by Reuters. The court in Bengalaru set the next hearing in the case for June 8.

NMC, the largest private healthcare provider in the UAE, was placed under administration in April after months of turmoil. It disclosed in March it had debts of $6.6 billion, well above earlier estimates of $2.1 billion.

Finablr, in which Shetty has a controlling stake, said in April it may have nearly $1 billion more in debt than previously reported.

Mangaluru, May 18: A boat which was engaged in an operation to fix the pipe relating to the reverse osmosis plant of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL) at Tannibavi turned turtle due to strong wind.

Two workers had gone missing in the incident that occurred on Sunday late evening, and one of them was rescued shortly thereafter.

The person who has not yet been found happens to be Pandu Pist from Mumbai. The person who was rescued was Santosh from Dakshina Kannada.

Three workers from West Bengal who were facing danger were also rescued.

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.