Ayodhya verdict: SC dismisses Shia Waqf Board's appeal

News Network
November 9, 2019

New Delhi, Nov 9: The Supreme Court on Saturday dismissed the appeal of the Shia Waqf Board in the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case in Ayodhya and held that the land belongs to the government as per revenue records.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi gave a unanimous verdict dismissing the Shia Waqf Board's appeal in the case over the disputed structure.

It said the disputed land was government land in the revenue records.

On September 16, the bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, reserved its decision after a 40-day high voltage hearing in the dispute involving 2.77 acres of land.

Fourteen appeals were filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits. It said the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 21,2020

Kochi, Jan 21: A special court here on Tuesday sent two students, who were arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case in Kozhikode last November, to the custody of National Investigation Agency (NIA) for a day.

The NIA court ordered that the duo, who were in judicial custody till now, to be produced before it tomorrow.

In its application, the NIA had said that the accused must be interrogated on the basis of digital records and sought custody of the duo for a week.

However, the defendant argued that no new evidence had been found against the accused and therefore no custody should be granted.

During an earlier hearing, the two had told the court, "We are not Maoists. We are CPI (M) activists. The Chief Minister, who says we are Maoists, should bring proof of whom we killed and where we bombed. In the last election, we have served as CPI (M), booth agents. We are the ones who went out to vote and pasted posters for the party."

The two were charged under Sections 20 (punishment for being a member of terrorist gang or organisation), 38 (offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation) and 39 (offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation) of the UAPA.

Allen and Thaha, students of law and journalism respectively of Kannur University, were taken into custody by the police from Pantheerankavu in Kozhikode on November 1 last year.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 24,2020

New Delhi, Jul 24: India reported the highest single-day spike of 49,310 coronavirus cases on Friday, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The total COVID-19 positive cases stand at 12,87,945 including 4,40,135 active cases, 8,17,209 cured/discharged/migrated.
With 740 deaths in the last 24 hours, the cumulative toll reached 30,601.

Maharashtra has reported 3,47,502 coronavirus cases, the highest among states and Union Territories in the country. A total of 1,92,964 cases have been reported from Tamil Nadu till now, while Delhi has recorded 1,27,364 coronavirus cases.

According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), 3,52,801 samples were tested for coronavirus on Thursday and overall 1,54,28,170 samples have been tested so far. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 16,2020

New Delhi, Jan 16: In trouble brewing for the Gautam Adani-led M/S Adani Enterprises, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday said that it has registered a case against former officials of the National Co-operative Consumer Federation (NCCF) and others over alleged irregularities in supply of coal to the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation (APGENCO) in 2010.

The CBI in its FIR has named Virendra Singh, the then Chairman of the NCCF, G P Gupta, the then MD of the NCCF, S C Singhal, the then Senior Advisor of NCCF, Adani Enterprises Ltd and other unknown public servants and others for criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct by public servants.

According to CBI, the case was filed on Wednesday after the preliminary enquiry revealed the crime by the officials named in the FIR and the Adani Enterprises was found to be true.

The FIR alleged that on June 26, 2010, APGENCO floated a tender enquiry for supply of six lakh metric tonnes of imported coal "on free on rail destination" basis to Dr Narla Tata Rao Thermal Station (NTTPS), Vijaywada and Rayalasaleema Thermal Power Plant (RTTP), Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh/RTPP via Kakinada-Vizag-Chennai-Krishnapatnam or any other ports

The same was forwarded by the Chief Engineer, APGENCO to seven PSUs -- PEC Limited, STC Limited, MSTC Limited, NCCF, MMTC, Coal India Limited and SCCL Limited.

The FIR alleged that during the probe, the Adani Enterprises used a proxy company to get the supply contract. It said, "NCCF received bids from six companies -- Adani Enterprises Ltd, Maheshwari Brothers Coal Limited (MBCL), Vyom Trade Links Pvt. Ltd, Swarana Projects Pvt. Ltd, Gupta Coal India Ltd and Kyori Oremen Ltd.

During investigation it was found that Gupta Coal India Ltd had quoted the NCCF margin of 11.3 percent, while the MBCL quoted the margin of 2.25 percent and rest did not quote any margin to the NCCF.

The FIR said the quotes of the Gupta Coal India Ltd, Kyori Oremen Ltd and Swarana Projects Pvt. Ltd were rejected by the NCCF as they were not found to be fulfilling the tender conditions.

"Post tender negotiation was done by senior officials of NCCF to give undue favour to Adani Enterprises Ltd despite it not qualifing the tender (terms)," the FIR said, adding instead of cancelling the bid of Adani Enterprise Ltd, senior management of NCCF conveyed the offer margin to the company through one of its representative -- Munish Sehgal, who was sitting in the NCCF head office. It is prima facie evident that when the bids were being processed at NCCF head office in Delhi, a representative of Adani Enterprises Ltd. was informed regarding their imminent rejection due to non-submission of NCCF margin and also that MBCL was eligible bidder quoted 2.25 percent margin," it alleged.

The CBI in its FIR, further alleged that Adani Enterprises Ltd. had given an unsecured loan of Rs 16.81 crore to Vyom Trade Links Ltd in 2008-09. "And further it was revealed that the bank guarantees of the Adani Enterprises Ltd. and Vyom Trade Links Ltd. were issues by the same branch of the State Bank of India and at the same time," it said.

"It was clear that Adani Enterprises Ltd. presented Vyom Trade Links Ltd. as a proxy company in this particular tender and Vyom Trade Links Ltd. later withdrew its offer on flimsy ground," the CBI FIR said.

"The aforesaid acts of commissions and omissions on the part of the senior management of the NCCF disclose that during their tenure, they acted in a manner unbecoming of public servants and committed irregularities by way of manipulation in the selection of bidders, thereby giving undue favours to Adani Enterprises Ltd. in award of work for supply of coal to APGENCO despite its disqualification," it added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.