ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW SERIES

PNB Fraud Case: Delhi Court summons 11 PNB Officials for misleading RBI on Nirav Modi On Tuesday[ March 26, 2019] , the Metropolitan Magistrate of the Patiala House Court in New Delhi issued summons against 11 officials of the Punjab National Bank. The summons are ordered for furnishing false statements and misleading the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) that ultimately led to a fraud of more than ₹11,000 crore at the Brady House Brand of Punjab National Bank in Mumbai. Officials summoned by the Patiala House court include current MD and CEO Sunil Mehta and former MD and CEO Usha Ananthasubramanium. RBI had, earlier this year, filed a complaint U/S 200 CrPC against Punjab National Bank and 11 of its officials for offences punishable U/S 46 of the  Banking Regulation Act  through an authorised representative. The RBI was successfully represented by Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, Advocate Ramesh Babu, Advocate Mugdha Pande, Swati Sethia and Ravi Sharma. MA...

PNB Fraud Case: Amid hue of extradition from UK, Nirav Modi likely to appear on Mar 29 via video conference Nirav Modi was arrested in central London on March 19 after the Westminster Court issued a warrant against him. He was arrested from Holborn metro station in London and produced before the court on March 20. District Judge Marie Mallon, who presided over the hearing, rejected Modi’s bail petition and noted “there are substantial grounds to believe that you would fail to surrender before the Court if bail were to be granted”. He has been lodged in the Wandsworth prison in Southwest London ever since. On Mar 29, formal hearings in Nirav Modi’s extradition case would begin. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), arguing the case for his extradition to face the Indian justice system on behalf of the Indian Govt, had strongly opposed bail because Modi had  “deliberately evaded justice”  and not returned to India despite a series of criminal summons issued by ...

Court allows ED to send LRs to 21 countries for assistance in 8,100 cr bank fraud case involving Sterling Biotech The ED registered its case based on Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) charge sheet & is probing money laundering. A Delhi Court has allowed the Enforcement Directorate to send Letters Rogatory (LR) to 21 countries, involving the U.K. & the UAE, seeking assistance in the probe of a 8,100 crore bank fraud case involving Gujarat-based Sterling Biotech Ltd. Additional Sessions Judge Satish Kumar Arora granted permission to the ED on its plea seeking nod to send the LRs, also known as letter of request, to countries, also involving the US, China, Panama & Austria. The LRs will also be send to Albania, where the Court recently allowed the ED to send extradition requests, after its special public prosecutor Nitesh Rana informed that its 2 directors – Nitin Sandesara & Chetankumar Sandesara – have obtained the citizenship. Another director of the f...

LATEST CASE LAW LATEST CASE LAW-  P BANDOPADHYA v. UNION OF INDIA [JUDGEMENT DATE:[15/03/2019] MANISHANKAR CEO- Anti-Corruption And Human Rights Movement®-Chennai Email:  anticorruption.org2007@ gmail.com . Mobile: 91 9087856137 Follow us on- twitter :   @ anticorp_2007             G+     :  https://plus.google.com/u/ 0/10694551751695191057

LATEST CASE LAW PAWAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. [JUDGEMENT DATE:[06/03/2019] MANISHANKAR CEO- Anti-Corruption And Human Rights Movement®-Chennai Email:  anticorruption.org2007@ gmail.com . Mobile: 91 9087856137 Follow us on- twitter :   @ anticorp_2007             G+     :  https://plus.google.com/u/ 0/106945517516951910577

LATEST CASE LAW S. SREESANTH v. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA MANISHANKAR CEO- Anti-Corruption And Human Rights Movement®-Chennai Email:  anticorruption.org2007@ gmail.com . Mobile: 91 9087856137 Follow us on- twitter :   @ anticorp_2007             G+     :  https://plus.google.com/u/ 0/106945517516951910577

ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW SERIES-44 Latest Case law-{07/02/2019} MADAN MOHAN MAHTO Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 and 34, The Constitution of India, Article 136. SC observed, when the two Courts below in their respective jurisdiction have appreciated the entire ocular evidence, then this Court would be very slow in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to appreciate the evidence afresh unless the appellants are able to point out that the concurrent finding of two Courts below is wholly perverse or is recorded without any evidence or is recorded by misreading or ignoring the material evidence. SC held, it was proved that all the accused came together armed with lethal weapons in their hands with an intention to attack the persons working in the field. Appeal is dismissed. 7/2/2019    View judgement PDF S.No Dear development leaders promote activities such as :- (All forms o...