English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Jay Shah’s Defamation Case Hearing Postponed to Dec 16 As He Seeks Exemption From Appearing On Ground of Social Engagement

Published

on

Jay-Shah

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This was the third adjournment in the high-profile case for which hearings are yet to start

A metropolitan court in Ahmedabad on Monday adjourned the hearing of the criminal defamation case against news portal ‘The Wire’ filed by Jay Amit Shah to December 16.

The petitioner, the son of BJP president Amit Shah, reportedly failed to turn up in the court for the first day of hearing. The adjournment came after Jay Shah, through his advocate, sought exemption from appearance in court for a day on the ground of social engagement, reported The Indian Express.

The Wire’s editors, reporters and others were present in the court for the hearing.

This was the third adjournment in the high-profile case after Shah’s lawyer senior advocate SV Raju failed to appear in court for the first hearing scheduled on October 11 as he was busy in high court. The second time, the court had earlier adjourned the hearing to October 26 as the Gujarat High Court had declared the day a holiday.

The news portal ‘The Wire’ and its editors and writer are facing defamation suit over a report, published on October 8, that claimed the turnover of Jay Shah’s firm grew exponentially – 16,000 times – after BJP came to power in 2014.

“This was the first day of the hearing and Jay Shah, the complainant in the criminal defamation against The Wire, did not show up,” the Outlook reported one of the founding editors of the portal, MK Venu as saying.

Venu said: “When the Judge asked the lawyer of Jay Shah about the absence of the complainant, his lawyer said he couldn’t come because of his social work commitments!”

“Procedurally, we were supposed to receive the documents from the other side. We will come on the 16th”, Venu told Outlook.

The metropolitan court issued summonses to the news portal and its editors after it prima facie found that a case of defamation punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both under section 500 of IPC was made out against all the seven respondents, including the writer Rohini Singh.

The order was issued after considering the depositions of three witnesses, including Jay Amit Shah, as well as documentary evidences produced by his lawyer SV Raju.

An Ahmedabad court had last month passed an order barring The Wire from publishing any further report on Jay Shah’s business turnover “so that the right to live with dignity of the plaintiff (Jay) may be protected”. Additional Senior Civil Judge B K Dasondi of Ahmedabad rural court had observed that the “injunction should be granted to applicant/plaintiff (Jay)” even though notice was not served upon the opposite parties (The Wire, its editor, the writer of the article, and others).

The order stated, “This court is of the opinion that if the application (of Jay) is not allowed, then it may lead to prejudice with the rights and interest of the applicant.”

In his order, the judge had prohibited the website from “using and publishing or printing in any electronic, print, digital or any other media, or broadcast, telecast, print and publish… in any language on the basis of article published in “The Wire” dated 8/10/17 either directly or indirectly on the subject matter with respect to plaintiff in any manner whatsoever”.

The case has generated keen interest among the people and, according to Lokniti-CSDS’ survey, despite the BJP’s attempts to defend Jay Shah and the defamation case, a substantial number of people – including nearly 50% of traditional BJP voters – think an inquiry is needed into the workings of the firm owned by Amit Shah’s son.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

DU VC Prof Yogesh Singh entrusted with additional charge of AICTE Chairman

Published

on

By

Prof. Yogesh Singh, Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi, has been entrusted with the additional charge of the post of Chairman, AICTE till the appointment of a Chairman of AICTE or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

It is noteworthy that AICTE Chairman Prof. TG Sitharam was relieved of his duties after his term ended on December 20, 2025. According to a letter issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, on Monday, Prof. Yogesh Singh’s appointment is until the appointment of a regular AICTE Chairman or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Prof. Yogesh Singh is a renowned academician with excellent administrative capabilities, who has been the Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi since October 2021. He has also served as the Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education. In August 2023, he was also given the additional charge of Director of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA).

Prof. Yogesh Singh served as the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi Technological University from 2015 to 2021; Director of Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Delhi from 2014 to 2017, and before that, he was the Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda (Gujarat) from 2011 to 2014. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He has a distinguished track record in quality teaching, innovation, and research in the field of software engineering.

Continue Reading

India News

Goa nightclub fire case: Court extends police custody of Luthra brothers by five days

A Goa court has extended the police custody of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the nightclub where a deadly fire killed 25 people, by five more days.

Published

on

Luthra brothers

A court in Goa on Monday extended the police custody of Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, the owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, by five more days in connection with the deadly fire incident that claimed 25 lives on December 6.

The order was passed as investigators sought additional time to question the two accused in the case linked to the blaze at the Anjuna-based nightclub.

Owners were deported after fleeing abroad

According to details placed before the court, the Luthra brothers had left the country following the incident and travelled to Thailand. They were subsequently deported and brought back to India on December 17, after which they were taken into police custody.

Advocate Vishnu Joshi, representing the families of the victims, confirmed that the court granted a five-day extension of police custody for both Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra.

Another co-owner sent to judicial custody

The court also remanded Ajay Gupta, another owner of the nightclub, to judicial custody. Police did not seek an extension of his custody, following which the court passed the order, the victims’ counsel said.

The Anjuna police have registered a case against the Luthra brothers for culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with other relevant offences related to the fire incident.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi High Court issues notice to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi in National Herald case

Delhi High Court has sought responses from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on the ED’s plea challenging a trial court order in the National Herald case.

Published

on

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the National Herald case. The petition challenges a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and other accused on the main petition, as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16 order. The high court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

The trial court had ruled that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the investigation was not based on a registered First Information Report (FIR). It observed that the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence.

According to the order, the ED’s probe originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. The court further noted that since cognisance was declined on a legal question, it was not necessary to examine the merits of the allegations at that stage.

The trial court also referred to the complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order issued in 2014, stating that despite these developments, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The agency has alleged that properties worth around Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper, were acquired through Young Indian.

The agency further claimed that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi held a majority 76 per cent shareholding in Young Indian, which allegedly took over AJL’s assets in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com