Tag: asks

Hindenburg report: KTR goes after BJP, asks who was aiding Adani group

[ad_1]
Hyderabad: BRS working president and Telangana IT minister KT Rama Rao on Saturday went after the BJP-led Centre and said that there are serious questions that need to be answered by the ‘NPA’ govt on findings of the Hindenburg Report.
“There are serious questions that need to be answered by the NPA Govt on #HindenburgReport Why do LIC & SBI have such large exposure ₹77,000 Cr & ₹80,000 Crore to Adani group stocks? Who pushed them to do so? Who was aiding & abetting them in this entire episode?” he asked on Twitter.
There are serious questions that need to be answered by the NPA Govt on #HindenburgReport
Why do LIC & SBI have such large exposure ₹77,000 Cr & ₹80,000 Crore to Adani group stocks? Who pushed them to do so?
Who was aiding & abetting them in this entire episode?
— KTR (@KTRBRS) January 28, 2023
Along with the Adani Group share pummelling on Friday, with the group losing Rs 3.37 lakh crore in aggregate market capitalisation in a single day, Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), the single largest non-promoter domestic shareholder in five of the largest Adani Group companies by market capitalisation, lost Rs 16,627 crore due to a drop in the value of its Adani Group holdings.
Indeed, the value of LIC’s Adani Group assets fell from Rs 72,193 crore on Tuesday to Rs 55,565 crore on Friday, a 22% drop in only two days.
Meanwhile, LIC’s share price declined 3.5 percent during the day on Friday, falling 5.3 percent in the prior two days.
What is the Hindenburg report?
Hindenburg Research, a well-known short seller in the United States, disclosed short positions in the Adani Group on Wednesday, accusing the conglomerate of the improperly wide use of businesses established in offshore tax havens and expressing worry about excessive debt levels.
The revelation, which comes just days before Adani Enterprises’ (ADEL.NS) $2.5 billion share sale, sent Adani group businesses’ shares tumbling.
It also said that seven Adani listed firms had an 85% downside on a fundamental basis because to what it dubbed ‘sky-high valuations’.

The firm published an investigative document titled ‘Adani Group: How The World’s 3rd Richest Man Is Pulling The Largest Con In Corporate History‘ and revealed findings of their two-year investigation presenting evidence that the Rs 17.8 trillion worth Adani group has engaged in a brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud scheme over the course of decades.
According to the report, Gautam Adani, the Adani Group’s founder, and chairman, has a net worth of about $120 billion, which he has increased by more than $100 billion in the last three years, primarily as a result of stock price growth in the group’s seven most important publicly traded companies, which have increased by an average of 819 percent during that time.
KT Rama Rao had also challenged the central investigative agencies including the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Income Tax Department (IT) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to probe into the Adani enterprise’s ‘scam’.
The challenge comes hours after US’s Hindenburg Research’s investigative document, alleging fraud in Adani Group’s dealings, surfaced.
KTR challenged the agencies to probe into the matter stating in a tweet “ED, CBI, IT & SEBI; Hain Dum probe Karne Ka👇??
KTR further went on to criticise mainstream and national media remarking on their ‘inefficiency’ to manifest such matters.
ED, CBI, IT & SEBI; Hain Dum probe Karne Ka👇??
I am sure NO mainstream National media will report/discuss this & even Social Media platforms will be coerced by NPA Govt into removing the report #NewIndia https://t.co/qpyBPsob5t
— KTR (@KTRBRS) January 25, 2023

[ad_2]
#Hindenburg #report #KTR #BJP #asks #aiding #Adani #group
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 28, 2023
Campaign finance regulator asks Santos to clarify who’s in charge of his political accounts

[ad_1]

Santos told CNN on Wednesday that he had no involvement with the amended filings, saying he “[did] not touch any of [his] FEC stuff.” It was still not clear on Friday who actually filed the Wednesday amendments that bore Datwyler’s electronic signature, although the number of people who would typically have access to a congressional campaign’s system for submitting filings to the FEC is small.
Neither Santos’ attorney nor Marks responded to multiple inquiries this week about who is currently serving as the campaign’s treasurer.
Campaigns are required to have a treasurer in order to carry out most functions, including accepting contributions. Santos’ campaign was still listed as accepting contributions via WinRed, the widely used Republican fundraising platform, as of Friday. WinRed processed more than $1 million in transactions for his campaign during the 2022 cycle, according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC data.
The company did not respond to inquiries about Santos’ use of its platform this week. But NBC News reported on Friday that the company had reached out to the Santos campaign over its reports, which show the committee paying more than $200,000 in fees to WinRed. That’s a greater total than would be expected based on the campaign’s total fundraising on the platform.
Santos, who was sworn into Congress earlier this month just weeks after The New York Times reported he had fabricated much of his biography, is also facing several campaign finance complaints before the FEC.
Complaints filed by nonprofits including the Campaign Legal Center and End Citizens United allege Santos may not have had the personal funds to loan his campaign the $700,000 it reported receiving from him last year, and the complaints also allege that his campaign may have misreported components of its spending. The Santos campaign reported dozens of transactions charged at exactly $199.99, just 1 cent below the threshold that required the campaign to keep receipts detailing the expenditures. Federal and local prosecutors are also investigating Santos’ finances, but he has not been charged with a crime.
The FEC has sent more than two dozen letters to Santos’ campaign and affiliated groups in the past two years. While the agency frequently sends such letters to campaigns to correct mistakes in filings, Santos’ political groups have received more of the notices than is typical.
[ad_2]
#Campaign #finance #regulator #asks #Santos #clarify #whos #charge #political #accounts
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 28, 2023
SC asks CBI, Gujarat why they want activist Teesta Setalvad, her husband back in jail

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the CBI and the Gujarat government as to why they want to send social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand back in jail after they have been out for over seven years on anticipatory bail.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka and BV Nagarathna said, “Question is how long can you keep someone in custody. Seven years have passed since anticipatory bail was granted. You want to send her back to custody.”
Advocate Rajat Nair, appearing for the CBI and the Gujarat government said some additional material needed to be placed before the court with regard to the cases and, therefore, four weeks time may be given.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Aparna Bhat, appearing for Setalvad and her husband Anand, said in one of the proceedings in which the CBI has come in appeal, anticipatory bail was granted following which a charge sheet was filed and after that regular bail was granted to her.
He said since a regular bail was granted, the appeal of the probe agency against anticipatory bail does not survive.
Nair said this had happened in one case but there are more than one case against her and requested the court to grant him four weeks to place additional material on record.
“A bench of two judges has referred this matter to a larger bench and has framed questions which need to be decided by this court,” Nair said.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing after four weeks.

Sibal submitted a note to the bench pursuant to the earlier direction giving details of issues as to which of the appeals survive for consideration and what is the subject matter to be decided as the passage of time may have taken care of some aspects.
The top court was hearing a batch of pleas filed by Setalvad, Anand, the Gujarat police and the CBI arising out of three FIRs lodged against the couple.
On March 19, 2015, the top court had referred to a larger bench the anticipatory bail plea of Setalvad and her husband in the case of alleged embezzlement of funds for a museum at Ahmedabad’s Gulbarg Society devastated in the 2002 riots and extended its interim order protecting them against arrest.
It had said the question that arises for consideration is whether liberty on the one hand and fair and effective investigation on the other make out a case for extending the benefit under Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail).
In 2014, an FIR was registered against them with DCP, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad, on charges of cheating, breach of trust and under the IT Act in a matter related to the construction of the “Museum of Resistance” in the Gulbarg housing society.
Teesta Setalvad and her husband, who were trustees of two trusts- ‘Citizens for Justice and Peace’ (CJP) and ‘Sabrang Trust’- were accused by Feroz Khan Saeed Khan Pathan of having raised a few crore of rupees as donation from certain donors from India and abroad after projecting to them the plight of the riot-affected people of Gulbarg Society.
The top court had noted in its order of March 19, 2015 that Pathan had alleged in his complaint that the couple entered into a conspiracy and promised the residents of the housing society they will build a museum in the honour of the 2002 riot victims. The court had also noted that the couple had asked the residents to not sell their properties in the housing society.
Pathan alleged the couple neither built the museum as promised nor spent the amount for the benefit of the members of the Gulbarg Society nor did they fulfil the assurance made to the victims regarding the sale of their properties.
In the second case, the CBI has moved the apex court against grant of anticipatory bail to Setalvad and her husband in a case where they have been accused of misusing foreign funds.
The probe agency has alleged that a company floated by the couple-Sabrang Communication and Publishing Pvt Ltd (SCPPL)- had received Rs 1.8 crore from US-based Ford Foundation allegedly without the mandatory approval of the Centre.
It has sought cancellation of their anticipatory bail claiming the Bombay high court had erred in giving them the relief after prima facie finding that provisions of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) had been violated.
In the third case, the Ahmedabad police had moved the apex court against the April 5, 2018 order of the Bombay High Court by which the couple was protected from arrest in an FIR registered on March 31, 2018 for allegedly securing central government funds worth Rs 1.4 crore “fraudulently” for her NGO Sabrang Trust between 2010 and 2013.
According to the Gujarat police, the funds were obtained for a project launched in some districts of Maharashtra and Gujarat to help the victims of the 2002 post-Godhra riots but were misappropriated or used for other purposes.
The couple has denied all the allegations made in the FIRs which are being probed by Gujarat police and the CBI.
[ad_2]
#asks #CBI #Gujarat #activist #Teesta #Setalvad #husband #jail
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 25, 2023
Telangana HC asks state govt to conduct Republic day event at Parade grounds

[ad_1]
Hyderabad: As a pushback to the Telangana government’s call to not celebrate Republic day at Parade grounds, the state High Court on Wednesday asked the government to adhere to the Defence ministry’s formulations for the Republic day at Parade grounds.
The state government reportedly has told Raj Bhavan that it may organise the R-Day celebration separately, breaking with tradition for the second year in a row by not holding a unified formal ceremony at Secunderabad’s Parade Ground.
In 2022, owing to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, KCR decided not to hold any Republic Day celebrations at the Parade Grounds in Secunderabad.
On Thursday, Telangana Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan said that her office did not receive any communication from the government on conducting the upcoming Republic Day event.
The rift between the Telangana Governor and the KCR government has deepened over the last two years. KCR is visibly upset about the Governor delaying the passing of 8 legislative bills in the assembly.
Soundararajan, a former Tamil Nadu BJP chief, took over as Telangana governor in 2019, but her relationship with the KCR government soured within a year. BRS leaders chastised her for acting like a ‘BJP agent,’ while the governor claimed Raj Bhavan personnel were being humiliated.
(This is a breaking story. Keep refreshing for newer updates).

Subscribe us on
[ad_2]
#Telangana #asks #state #govt #conduct #Republic #day #event #Parade #grounds
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 25, 2023
SC asks Ghaziabad court to defer PMLA case proceedings against Rana Ayyub

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear on January 31, a plea by journalist Rana Ayyub against the summonses issued by a Ghaziabad court in connection with a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.
The top court asked the Ghaziabad court to adjourn the hearing on January 27 and scheduled it after January 31.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing Ayyub, submitted before a bench comprising justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian, that petitioner has been summoned by a Ghaziabad court and sought a stay on the coercive proceedings. The counsel argued that she is challenging the jurisdiction and cognizance of this case by PMLA court in Uttar Pradesh and added no part of the offence occurred there. Grover said the liberty of her client is at stake, and questioned whether ED be allowed to drag her to any court in the country.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, opposed her submissions. Mehta said crowdfunding is the new device where you collect money and added, why can she not file for anticipatory bail like all litigants? Every litigant is equal before the eyes of law.
After hearing arguments, the bench said it will hear the case on January 31 and in the meantime Ghaziabad special court is requested to adjourn the hearing fixed on January 27 to a date after January 31. The top court clarified that this order is being passed because the hearing before it cannot be concluded today due to paucity of time and not on merits.
The ED, in October last year, had filed a charge sheet against Ayyub, accusing her of cheating the public and utilising charity funds worth Rs 2.69 crore for creating her personal assets, and also violating the foreign contribution law.
Ayyub moved the apex court seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by the ED in Ghaziabad. The plea contended that the alleged offence of money laundering occurred in Mumbai, while citing lack of jurisdiction.
A special PMLA court in Ghaziabad, in November last year, had taken cognizance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate and summoned Ayyub. The special court said that from the perusal of the entire record there is sufficient evidence as to a prima facie case for taking cognizance against Rana Ayyub with regard to commission of offence.

The special court has noted the alleged offence is connection with obtaining illegally money from the general public in the name of charity via ‘Ketto’ platform, which is an online crowdfunding platform, in three campaigns without any kind of approval, raising huge amounts in the bank account of her sister and father and later transferring the same to her own bank account which was not used for the intended purpose.
[ad_2]
#asks #Ghaziabad #court #defer #PMLA #case #proceedings #Rana #Ayyub
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 25, 2023
Hyderabad: Court asks Xiaomi to replace TV or refund customer

[ad_1]
Hyderabad: A consumer court here directed technology and mobile giant Xiaomi to either give a man a new TV as replacement for a defect, or to return the amount of Rs 35,999 that he paid for a product and received a faulty one instead. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad-III, also asked Xiaomi to pay the man Rs 5,000 as compensation as well.
The order dated January 10 from the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission came after B. Mahesh, a resident of Secunderabad approached it with the complaint against Xiaomi. He wrote that he had ordered an LED TV for his home and after verifying all the models he zeroed in on the Mi 125.7 (50 inches) 4K Ultra HD Android Smart LED TV.
However, the complainant, after purchasing the product online, faced an issue with the Xiaomo TV and contacted its service centre through the customer care.
According to his complaint, Mahesh said a request was raised for replacement as the TV was faulty, and that the technician who checked it replaced the TV. However, the issue that Mahesh raised that the replacement Xiaomi TV was not a new one and a renewed TV instead. He said that Xiaomi was not ready to give him a new TV as a replacement.
He added that Xiaomi had said it will provide him with a coupon of invoice worth the amount paid by him for the TV. Mahesh also said he was assured that that it will be processed within 7-10 days (of him being told anout it). After ot receiving the credit or the said refund, Mahesh approached the consumer court as he felt cheated. After going through all the details, the court ruled in his favour.
It asked Xiaomi to exchange the new TV of the same model or to refund the value of the Mi TV of Rs.35,999 along with a compensation Rs. 5,000 Rs. 2,000 towards costs of the complaint.
[ad_2]
#Hyderabad #Court #asks #Xiaomi #replace #refund #customer

( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 25, 2023
Delhi HC asks police if same 2020 riots hate speech cases pending before SC

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked Delhi Police to inform whether the 2020 riots hate speeches cases it is dealing with are subject matter of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court.
“If these hate speeches are also under consideration in the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, would it be advisable for us to proceed with it?” a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh said.
The bench was dealing with a bunch of petitions seeking FIRs against leaders like Union Minister Anurag Thakur, BJP leader Kapil Mishra and others for alleged hate speeches during riots.
The Supreme Court, on December 17, 2021 had asked the High Court to decide expeditiously, preferably within three months, on one of the petitions seeking FIR and investigation against politicians.
Furthermore, the court asked senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who was representing one of the petitioners, Shaikh Mujtaba, regarding any instances in which the High Court had ordered that a retired judge launch a fact-finding investigation.
“Supreme Court has done so but has the High Court ever directed it? Supreme Court has powers under Article 142 which the High Court doesn’t exercise,” it held.
About the pendency of proceedings the bench said that none of these parties that are now impleaded were parties when these matters were first listed.
“That delay was occasioned not because of the court. They were not parties. That’s the point,” the court said.

“Today again we are told that there is only one petition before us and now the batch is clubbed again. The idea is to make sure that in this clutter, we don’t lose the plot. We want to know whether these hate speeches are subject matter before Supreme Court,” the court said.
On July 13, 2022, the HC had allowed the applications seeking impleadment of various political leaders like Thakur, Mishra and Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, AAP’s Manish Sisodia and AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi among others in the pleas.
The court listed the matter for the next hearing on February 2.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #asks #police #riots #hate #speech #cases #pending
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 24, 2023
Priest asks Sajid Khan to chant Jai Shri Ram – Viral Video

[ad_1]
Mumbai: Filmmaker Sajad Khan made his first public appearance after his exit from Bigg Boss 16 during the special screening of Sidharth Malhotra-Rashmika Mandanna-starrer ‘Mission Majnu’ in Mumbai. During the event, Sajid was asked about his experience in Bigg Boss and even some paps requested him to reveal the winner of the season. He was spotted having a brief converstaion with paps but what grabbed the eyeballs of netizens was viral video in which a priest asked Sajid to chan Jai Shri Ram.
Priest at first requested filmmaker to take a photo with him and clicked a selfie with him. Just after capturing photograph, the priest asked Sajid Khan to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. Bigg Boss 16 contestant left the event just after the priest’s request. A video of Sajid fleeing the event has surfaced on social media platforms. The priest tried to make sajid Khan chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ thrice in the video.

Netizens flooded the comments section by reacting to the incident that happened with the Sajid Khan. One user wrote, “Kiyu force karre ho jay siyaram bolne ke liye yeh resson hai desh ko andhbhakto ne barbad kardiya hai..! Shame on you (Why force someone to say Jai Shri Ram. Such andhbhakts are the reason why our country is backward),”
Another social media user wrote, “I am Hindu baki bro kisi ko jabardasti Jay Shri Ram nahin bula sakte or na Allah u Akbar sab apne apne dharm ka Aadar Karen”.
We have observed that most of the netizens supported Sajid Khan in the comments box but a few recalled allegations of sexual misconduct made by various actresses and models against him.
Relevant to mention here that Sajid Khan took a voluntary exit from TV reality show Bigg Boss to shoot for his upcoming film ‘100 percent’. The film stars Riteish Deshmukh, Shehnaaz Gill, Nora Fatehi and John Abraham.
Subscribe us on

[ad_2]
#Priest #asks #Sajid #Khan #chant #Jai #Shri #Ram #Viral #Video
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 23, 2023
After banning BBC documentary on Modi, Govt asks people who have already watched the documentary to donate their eyes

[ad_1]
On Saturday, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued directions to block the first episode of the BBC Documentary ‘India: The Modi Question’ on YouTube, and other social media platforms. The social media platform Twitter was asked to block more than 50 tweets containing the links of the video on YouTube. However, by the time the direction to delete was issued, more than a lakh people had already watched the documentary.

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting later issued another set of directions for people who have already watched the documentary. Ministry asks the people who have already watched the documentary to donate their eyes. The ministry used the emergency powers under the IT rules, 2021 to issue the directions.

On the other hand, UK has condemned the banning of broadcasting saying are we living in North Korea or in world under a British rule?
[ad_2]
#banning #BBC #documentary #Modi #Govt #asks #people #watched #documentary #donate #eyes
[ Disclaimer: With inputs from The Fauxy, an entertainment portal. The content is purely for entertainment purpose and readers are advised not to confuse the articles as genuine and true, these Articles are Fictitious meant only for entertainment purposes. ]

January 21, 2023
SC Asks J&K To Not Demolish Houses In Roshni Land; Refuses To Stay Govt Order For Removal Of Encroachments

[ad_1]
SRINAGAR: On Friday, the Supreme Court of India refused to stay a circular issued by Jammu & Kashmir government directing deputy commissioners to remove encroachments on State Land including Roshni Land and Kachharie land by January 31, 2023, reported LiveLaw.in.
A bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, though expressed its disclination in not passing an order today, it orally asked the Union Territory to not demolish any houses.
“We are not passing any order today. You instruct them orally not to demolish any houses. But we will not grant a general stay…. others should not get benefit,” the bench orally told the counsel of J&K, according to report published in Livelaw.in.
During the hearing, the advocate for the petitioner argued that many tribals are residing on the land and took the Court through the reliefs prayed for.
“If stay is granted then it will benefit land grabbers also?”, Justice Shah asked.
The counsel appearing for the Union Territory clarified that the circular is mainly focused on the Roshni land. He also questioned the locus of the applicants.
“The Application was served on me yesterday. It does not even mention that the applicants live there”, he pointed out while adding that the said land only had shops and such establishments.
The Court then adjourned the matter. The matter was mentioned before the Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, earlier this week.

The Jammu and Kashmir government, on January 9, directed the removal of all encroachments on State Land, including Roshni Land and Kachharie land, by January 31, 2023. The order was passed while several review petitions challenging Roshni Act Judgment remain pending before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
In 2020, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act 2001, [popularly known as Roshni Act] is completely unconstitutional.

[ad_2]
#Asks #Demolish #Houses #Roshni #Land #Refuses #Stay #Govt #Order #Removal #Encroachments
( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

January 20, 2023