<keyword id="1204125" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="The-Delhi-High-Court">The Delhi High Court</keyword> has sought the response of Google and Facebook on a plea moved by <keyword id="10426237" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="the-gujarat-cooperative-milk-marketing-federation">the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation</keyword> (GCMMF) Limited, which sells milk and dairy products under the <keyword id="10426238" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="amul-trademark">Amul trademark</keyword>, seeking removal of certain videos alleging that those are cruel to cows. Issuing notice to the two social media platforms and the person who uploaded the videos and seeking their replies to the GCMMF's suit, Justice <keyword id="221693" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Mukta-Gupta">Mukta Gupta</keyword> refrained from passing any <keyword id="449209" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="interim-order">interim order</keyword> directing removal of the videos, titled "Unholy Cattle of India: Exposing Cruelty in the Indian Dairy Industry", from YouTube and Facebook. The court asked the person, who uploaded the video, to indicate in his reply how the GCMMF or its members were indulging in cruelty to cows and why Amul's mascot was used in the video. With the direction, the court listed the matter for hearing on January 15, 2021. The GCMMF, in its suit, has sought the removal of the videos from YouTube and Facebook, claiming that the person who has uploaded those is targeting it. The suit has contended that the videos uploaded by defendant Nitin Jain "were slanderous and disparaged and denigrated the Amul brand and trademark". Jain's lawyers -- senior advocate Raj Panjwani and advocates Supriya Juneja and Priyanka Bangari -- told the court that the Amul trademark was not being used by their client for commercial purposes. Taking note of the defendant's stand and the fact that the videos were in public domain since 2018, the court said it was not passing any ad interim injunction and was giving Jain an opportunity to file his reply. "Along with the reply affidavit, the defendant 1 (Jain) will also state whether it obtains any profits out of the videos uploaded and if yes, the statement of accounts thereof," the court said. HMP RC

Amul seeks removal of videos claiming they are cruel to cows — HC asks Google, Facebook to respond

<ul><li><keyword id="8082634" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="white-hat-jr">White Hat Jr</keyword> has charged <keyword id="10318207" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="pradeep-poonia">Pradeep Poonia</keyword> of hacking and trademark violation aside from defamation.</li><li>After a court hearing on November 23 (Monday), Poonia will have to take down some of the tweets as a part of an ad interim injunction. </li><li>The battle in court between White Hat Jr and Poonia is the culmination of a long online battle fought between the two.</li></ul><a href="https://twitter.com/whiteHatSnr">Pradeep Poonia</a> will have to take down some of the tweets, especially those accusing White Hat Jr of being a ‘ponzi scheme’, other unsubstantiated charges, after an ad interim injunction from the <keyword id="6355014" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> in the case filed by the startup founded by Karan Bajaj, bought out by peer Byju’s recently for $300 million. The <keyword id="1464841" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Edtech">edtech</keyword> firm has also charged Poonia for hacking into the company’s servers, which Poonia’s counsel has denied. It is not a final decision in the case. The court will hear both sides in the next hearing scheduled on January 6, 2021. “This court finds that the grant of an interim injunction in the present suit entails decisions on various disputed questions of fact,” Justice Mukta Gupta said, inviting Poonia to submit an affidavit in response to the charge. Under the ad interim injunction, Poonia has been restrained from: <ol><li>downloading and distributing directly or indirectly White Hat Jr’s curriculum or study material through his own channel or third party channels. </li><li>hacking or any unauthorised access to internal communication platform Slack and displaying it to the world at large. </li><li>commenting on the number or quality of teachers on White Hat Jr’s without sufficient details about the teachers’ education or their professional backgrounds. </li><li>using the name White Hat Sr for the YouTube channel and some of the videos displaying proprietary content or internal communications will have to be taken down. </li></ol>Poonia has also been directed by the court to take down tweets which have unsubstantiated claims regarding White Hat Jr. The battle in court between White Hat Jr and Poonia is the culmination of a long online battle fought between the two. Poonia has been an open critic of the edtech startup’s promises and its workplace ethics, over various social media platforms – LinkedIn, YouTube and now, Twitter. White Hat Jr has now charged Pradeep Poonia of hacking and trademark violation, copyright infringement aside from defamation and claimed damages worth $2.6 million. The court has recognised that while the defendant has the right to criticise the platform but also that “some lines have been crossed” in the process. Over the last few months, White Hat Jr has forced suspension of Poonia’s LinkedIn accounts, his YouTube videos and more. But the platform has faced criticism for its aggressive marketing. Even the lawyers for White Hat Jr admitted that some of the marketing content may have been a “gimmick”. This was in reference to the advertising <a href="https://in.news.yahoo.com/wolf-gupta-byju-whitehat-jr-090945630.html">character Wolf Gupta</a> which Poonia has called misleading and a fake advertisement. White Hat Jr’s lawyers said that “...perhaps it was a bad idea. We have taken it down.” The judge Mukta Gupta also left room to debate whether teaching young children coding is a good idea or whether the business model is an <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/whiteHatSnr/status/1316728158373068801">“EMI trap”</a>, as accused by Poonia. The judge said that there are enough arguments on both sides on children being taught coding as well as the pressures of online learning. It is important to note that the Indian government’s <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/education/news/india-revamps-its-education-policy-after-34-years-scraps-mphil-proposes-vocational-courses-from-class-6-ug-colleges-to-become-autonomous/articleshow/77241851.cms">recent changes to the National Education Policy</a> included the introduction of coding at a young age in schools. “His issue with us is ideological. He wants education to be free. I appreciate that. But I don’t see him going against other private schools,” White Hat Jr’s lawyer argued. The tougher challenge for Poonia will be to prove that there was no ‘hacking’ White Hat Jr has levelled a serious accusation of hacking against Poonia. Over the last few months, Poonia has shared screenshots of White Hat Jr’s team chats on Slack to call out the startup’s marketing practices, lapses in the organisation’s culture, and in the process shared the private numbers of teachers on Twitter and thus compromising their privacy. However, Poonia’s lawyer argued that there was no hacking and employees of White Hat Jr contacted Poonia to share the details. But the stance taken by the edtech firm is that any unauthorised, whether it was through hacking or through an employee sharing his/her credentials, it would be unlawful. “He put up the password of the CEO on a public forum. He did a live stream after hacking into the system for the entire weekend,” the lawyer said. On Saturday (November 21), Bajaj sent an email, which was seen by Business Insider, to his employees reminding them of the confidentiality clause in their contract and asked them not to disclose any confidential information or share their login details with any third party. This is likely to be a prolonged legal battle. “Delhi HC refused to grant a sweeping injunction against me as #WhiteHatJr wanted in their 20 Cr suit. They keep trying to silence dissent and have failed. AGAIN! Thanks to all of you who supported me! Let’s continue to fight for transparent and ethical biz practices ,” <a href="https://twitter.com/whiteHatSnr/status/1330792585162473472">Poonia said in a tweet (sic)</a> right after the court hearing. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/health/news/oxford-and-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-is-70-effective-and-india-may-authorise-emergency-use-after-uk-nod/articleshow/79365393.cms">Oxford and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is 70% effective — India may authorise emergency use after UK nod</a>

White Hat Jr gets a partial gag order against Pradeep Poonia who now has to defend a ‘hacking’ charge as well

The <keyword id="6355014" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> on Wednesday sought response from <keyword id="375475" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Future-Retail">Future Retail</keyword> Limited on <keyword id="18635" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Amazon">Amazon</keyword>'s petition to set aside observations in the interim order of a single-bench in a suit filed by the retailer. On December 21, a single-member bench presided by Justice Mukta Gupta had refused to restrain Amazon from interfering in Future Retail's deal with Reliance by writing to the statutory authority in view of the Emergency Award. Pursuant to this, Amazon moved the division bench of the Delhi High Court against the order dated December 21. During the proceedings on Wednesday, the division bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice to the Future Retail Limited and slated the matter to February 12. Advocate Gopal Subramanium and Rajiv Nayyar appeared for Amazon. Advocate Harish Salve came on behalf of Future Retail Limited, while Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Darius Khambata for Reliance. Amazon had dragged Future Group to arbitration at Singapore International Arbitration Centre after the firm signed a pact to sell retail, wholesale, logistics and warehousing units to Mukesh Ambani's Reliance in a Rs 24,713 crore deal. As per the Amazon, Future Retail Limited violated the contract by entering into the deal with Reliance. In a fresh plea before the Delhi High Court, Amazon stated, "The learned single Judge made certain prima facie observations on the merits of the Appellant's case in the arbitration proceedings which are inconsistent with the findings of the EA order and thus gravely prejudice the appellant." "The prima facie observations contained in the impugned order effectively resulted in allowing Future Retail Limited to collaterally bypass the EA order," Amazon said. Amazon said Future Retail has been relying on these prima facie observations to misconstrue the true import of the impugned order in an effort to mislead regulators to grant approval to the potential transactions which has forced Amazon to file an appeal to quash and set aside the prima facie observations.

Future Retail vs Amazon: Delhi HC asks the Kishore Biyani group to share responses to a plea filed by the e-commerce giant

New Delhi, May 7 () Another PIL has been moved in the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the municipal corporations and the AAP government to provide masks, protection kits and hazmat suits to its sanitation workers.The petition moved by a union of municipal corporation staff said one worker employed with South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) died due to coronavirus in April."More than 80 per cent sanitation workers are working in Delhi without personal protective gear," the plea has claimed.The matter came up for hearing on Wednesday before Justice Mukta Gupta, who tagged it with another similar plea which is listed for hearing before another bench on Friday. Earlier similar petition was moved by social activist Harnam Singh who has also sought testing of all the sanitation workers and their immediate families for COVID-19.Singh moved the high court after his plea was disposed of by the Supreme Court by taking into account the arguments of the Centre that sanitation workers in the country have been provided with requisite protective kits and the authorities are following the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) on the coronavirus pandemic.The latest petition, by All Municipal Corporation Staff Union, has contended that sanitation workers and rag pickers are at risk of coronavirus infection from handling unmarked medical waste emerging from homes where COVID-19 patients are quarantined and therefore, they need to be provided proper protection gear.Besides that, the plea seeks that the workers be also instructed on disposal of their masks and gloves and that sanitization cubicles be put up in each ward for the workers to sanitize themselves before going to their respective homes. HMP SKV RKS RKSRKS

COVID-19:Another plea in HC to provide sanitation workers with protective gear

New Delhi, Apr 7 () The Delhi High Court has asked the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) here to file a status report indicating the medical treatment to be administered to a woman, who is HIV positive and suffering from oral cancer and was facing difficulty in getting treated due to the coronavirus pandemic.The court was informed by the counsel for the woman that after filing of the petition she has been admitted at the Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital (IRCH), AIIMS on April 4 and her treatment for cancer has been started. Justice Mukta Gupta, who conducted the hearing through video conferencing, said whether a surgery has to be performed or any other alternate treatment is to be given to the patient is the exclusive decision of the concerned doctors."Considering the fact that the petitioner (woman) has been admitted in IRCH, AIIMS and her treatment has started, at this stage this court finds no further directions to be issued to the respondent No.1 (AIIMS). However, respondent No.1 would file a status report indicating the course of treatment being administered or likely to be administered to the petitioner," the judge said in the order passed on Monday and uploaded on the court's website on Tuesday.The woman, in her plea filed through her husband, said she is an HIV positive patient for the last twenty years and since 2015 she was suffering from mouth ulcers, which over the passage of time developed into cancer. This fact has come into her knowledge only on March 9 this year, the plea said.Advocates Saurabh Chauhan and Varun Jain, appearing for the woman, said as her condition worsened, she was visiting OPD at AIIMS but was referred to the Cancer Centre at AIIMS, Jhajjar.Before she could visit the hospital, in view of the lockdown and the fact the AIIMS, Jhajjar has been notified as an exclusive hospital for treatment of COVID-19 patients, her appointment was cancelled and she was only examined at the OPD of AIIMS, Delhi and no treatment was given, she claimed in the plea, adding that her condition worsened.Advocate Anand Varma, representing AIIMS, said the woman has been admitted to IRCH, AIIMS and in view of her immune condition and multiple problems, the doctors are considering to administer her definitive chemo radiations instead of going ahead with a surgery which is not feasible in her present condition. The court was also informed by the woman's counsel that she and her family members were finding it difficult to travel to the hospital in view of the lockdown and they require movement passes.The counsel for Delhi government told the court that movement passes were already issued to the woman and her family for 10 days and assured that additional passes will be issued to them till the lockdown period is extended and they will not require to approach the authorities again.The court listed the matter for further hearing on April 10 through video conferencing. SKV HMP RDMRDM

HC asks AIIMS to give report on treatment of HIV positive cancer patient

New Delhi, Apr 6 () The Delhi High Court Monday reserved its order on the interim bail plea of Christian Michel James, an alleged middleman arrested in connection with the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam cases by the CBI and the ED, who cited risk of contracting coronavirus in Tihar Jail.Justice Mukta Gupta, who conducted the proceeding through video conferencing, heard the arguments on behalf of counsel for Michel and the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate.Both the probe agencies opposed the interim bail plea.Michel, 59, claimed that his health condition was critical and incompatible with the current prison status, especially to cope up with the risk of contracting the COVID-19 infection which could have a lethal effect on him as he is already suffering from serious pathologies."The agedness and a pre-existing ill state of health will make the applicant's (Michel) body more susceptible to the said infection than any other ordinary prisoner with a normal health condition. Further, the presence within prisons of subjects who are tested positive for Covid19 pose a threat to the applicant considering his existing health condition and age," said the plea, through Vishnu Shankar and Aljo K Joseph.Last week, the apex court had asked Michel to first approach the high court with his plea.In his plea, he also referred to the Supreme Court's March 16 order directing all the states and union territories to constitute high-level committees to consider releasing on parole or interim bail prisoners and undertrials, for offences entailing up to 7-year jail term, to decongest jails in the wake of coronavirus pandemic.The plea further cited the Prime Minister's speech declaring a nation wide 21-day lockdown on March 24 to avoid spread of the virus.It said that Michel's health condition be monitored and treated and he required an environment like home where the risk of contagion is lesser and social distancing can be effectively practiced. The regular bail plea of Michel, who was arrested in 2018 and is in judicial custody since January 5, 2019, is also pending before the high court where the CBI and the ED have contended that he should not be granted the relief as he has a nexus with influential people and can influence witnesses.He has been denied bail in both the matters by the trial court. He has approached the high court against the lower court's decision.The special CBI court had denied him the relief, saying there was no sufficient ground to grant bail.Michel, extradited from Dubai, was arrested by the ED on December 22, 2018.On January 5 last year, he was sent to judicial custody in the ED case. He is also lodged in judicial custody in another case registered by the CBI in connection with the scam.Michel is among the three alleged middlemen being probed in the case by the ED and the CBI. The other two are Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa. SKV HMP SA

Chopper Scam: Delhi HC reserves order on Michel's interim bail plea citing virus risk in jail

New Delhi, May 29 () The Delhi High Court has restrained OLX India and Quikr India from posting on their web portals "fake and fraudulent" recruitment advertisements by using words 'JIO Jobs' and 'Reliance Trends Jobs' allegedly causing harm to the goodwill and reputation of Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL). Justice Mukta Gupta, in two separate interim orders, said RIL and Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd have made out a prima facie case in their favour and in case no ad-interim injunction is granted they would suffer an irreparable loss and balance of convenience also lies in their favour. The high court passed the orders Thursday on two suits by RIL saying they are the owners of trademarks and trade names JIO and RELIANCE, with its variations in number of classes and defendants OLX India BV and OLX India Pvt Ltd and Quikr India Pvt Ltd are causing immense harm and irreparable injury to their goodwill and reputation. The web portals are engaged in publishing classified advertisements and they enable consumers to publish advertisements for selling and offering goods and services for a consideration. The lawsuits said fake and fraudulent recruitment advertisements were being published on the defendants' web portals which are accessible under various words like "JIO JOBS, RELIANCE TRENDS JOBS" and this infringes the plaintiffs' trademark and trade name JIO and RELIANCE. It said their trademark was being used and a number of innocent job seekers are duped and money is being extorted from them. The lawsuit against Quikr said that the web portal also operates as an online recruitment website facilitating consumers to advertise job vacancies. It said that the defendant categorises its customers who are job seekers into three different categories such as 'Gold', 'Rapid Hire' and 'Spot Light' thereby charging its customers on the basis of facilities which they would be able to avail from this portal. The counsel for OLX India submitted before the high court that they have removed some of the URLs and due to technical reasons, one URL could not be removed and they are in the process of doing it. They further said they have also added filters with the words 'JIO and RELIANCE' so that in future nobody can misuse their platform with these false and fictitious advertisements so as to defraud the job seekers and infringe the plaintiffs' trademarks or trade names. The counsel for Quikr India said the listings on its portal are automatic and in view of the large number of people listing their advertisements on the web portal and the system being auto generated, the web portal has no mechanism to ascertain the authenticity of the third parties. The counsel said as and when any party lodges a complaint, the defendant pulls down the concerned URL and in this case on being informed that these two URLs are fake, it would immediately pull them down. The high court, in its order passed in Quikr case, said "Consequently, till the next date of hearing, defendant, its agents, servants, affiliates are also restrained from putting on their portal any advertisement containing the name/mark JIO and RELIANCE with its variations and/or any other mark, logo which is deceptively/confusingly similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks JIO and RELIANCE in terms of prayer…" The high court also issued summons to OLX India and Quikr India on the lawsuits and listed the matter for further hearing on September 21. The high court asked the OLX India and Quikr India to file their written statement in response to the suit and added that the affidavit would indicate the "process implemented by them as also the due diligence carried out and precautions taken so that the platform of the defendants is not misused and illegal advertisements posted thereon". SKV HMP RKS RKS RKS

HC restrains OLX, Quikr from posting fake Reliance job ads on web portals

<ul><li>The Kishore Biyani-led group moved the <keyword id="6355014" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="delhi-high-court">Delhi High Court</keyword> seeking relief from the stay order which <keyword id="18635" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Amazon">Amazon</keyword> had received from a Singapore arbitrator. </li><li>During the proceedings at the court, Harish Salve representing <keyword id="375475" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Future-Retail">Future Retail</keyword> said that Amazon has many falsehoods and one of them is claiming that it didn’t know about the Reliance-Future Retail deal until September 2020.</li><li>The Delhi High Court adjourned the hearing until November 11.</li><li>The court issued summons to Amazon, Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL) and Reliance Retail Ltd (RRL) on the FRL suit and asked them to file their written statements within 30 days.</li></ul>Reliance and Future Retail’s legal tussle against Amazon continues as the Kishore Biyani-led group moved the Delhi High Court seeking relief from the stay order, which Amazon had received from a Singapore arbitrator. After a day-long hearing, which included comments from legal representatives from Future Retail, Future Group and Amazon, the court adjourned the hearing until November 11. The Delhi High Court also sought Amazon's response on Future Retail's plea, which alleged that the Jeff Bezos-led e-commerce giant was interfering in its deal with Reliance Retail on the basis of an interim order by a Singapore arbitrator. Justice Mukta Gupta issued summons to Amazon, Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL) and Reliance Retail Ltd (RRL) on the FRL suit and asked them to file their written statements within 30 days. ‘Amazon knew about RIL-Future Retail deal’, claim Future’s lawyers During the proceedings at the court, Harish Salve representing Future Retail said that Amazon has many falsehoods and one of them is claiming that it didn’t know about the Reliance-Future Retail deal until September 2020. Salve claimed during the proceedings that Future Retail, which was badly hit during the pandemic, had begun negotiations with Reliance during June 2020 and Amazon knew about it. It is important to note that Amazon in its letter to SEBI had claimed that Future had <a href="https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/amazon-claims-future-hid-facts-from-investors-11604942502089.html">hidden facts </a>from the e-commerce giant. Salve argued that Amazon cannot jump into the Future Retail-Reliance transaction and if there is a dispute they will have to refer to dispute resolution. Legal reporting platform Bar &amp; Bench quoted the top lawyer, who also represents Reliance, “FRL is a listed entity. Before Amazon invested in FCPL, it wanted to ensure that Biyani had control over FRL. If banks sold Biyani's shares, an outsider would have come in. Amazon cannot say that they will become parties to this. They cannot come in only because there is a concept of group companies.” <div type="twitter" handle="barandbench" handlename="Bar &amp; Bench" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1304761912068984833/5-qPfQOb_normal.jpg" favoritecount="391" retweetcount="46" status="Delhi High Court begins hearing Future Retail's suit against @amazon in relation to the interim order passed by an… https://t.co/Y94DUogA5E" createdat="1604986308000" id="1326034806124146689"></div> Salve further argued that Amazon’s relief is against Future Coupons and so it has to be their arbitration, but it can’t go against Future Retail. “They shouldn't interfere.. let them come to NCLT as a stakeholder if they want to,” he said during the proceedings as reported by Bar &amp; Bench. The lawyer also argued that FDI isn’t allowed in multi-brand retail in India and that Amazon can’t go ahead with FDI violations. Salve ended his arguments in court by saying, “Please don’t let this American giant kill Future.” Appearing for other Future Group parties, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that Amazon had made opportunistic opposite submissions to CCI and SEBI. “The court is dealing with a concept which is alien to Indian law. Emergency Arbitration doesn't exist in India,” he said. Singhvi further argued that seat is Delhi for the case, as “under Singapore Rules, emergency Arbitration is pre arbitration and temporary. It is auto terminated once the arbitral panel takes over”. Meanwhile, representing Amazon senior advocate Subramanium said, “Amazon is an investor..law gives me protective rights. Emergency Arbitrator prima facie concludes that there was no inhibition on investment in FCPL.. there was no violation of FDI. If they had succeeded before the emergency Arbitrator, would they still say it was not binding.” The court went on to adjourn the hearing for the day. The legal battle so far One of the most talked about deals in the Indian retail industry has now turned into a global fight between the world’s richest man Jeff Bezos and India’s richest man Mukesh Ambani. <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/future-retail-reliance-deal-bse-to-consult-sebi-after-amazons-request-heres-all-that-has-happened-so-far/articleshow/78949099.cms">Here’s a timeline of events in the Future Retail, Reliance vs Amazon fight so far</a> On October 25, global e-commerce giant Amazon got a stay order on the Future Retail and Reliance deal from a Singapore arbitrator, and had written to BSE and SEBI to uphold the decision. Amazon had sent a legal notice to Future Coupons over Future Group’s ₹25,000 crore deal with Reliance. Amazon had <a href="https://www.timesnownews.com/business-economy/companies/article/amazon-sends-legal-notice-to-future-group-for-alleged-breach-rofl-rights-in-reliance-deal/663768">said that </a>it was denied the Rights of First Refusal for the deal with Future Group. The Singapore court had ruled in favour of Amazon and passed an interim order that put the RIL-Future deal on hold. Future Retail had on November 7 informed the bourses that it was seeking relief and contended that Amazon was ‘misusing’ the interim order passed by an emergency arbitrator, appointed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) on October 25, 2020. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/google-will-be-probed-by-indias-competition-commission-for-allegedly-abusing-dominance-to-push-gpay/articleshow/79141895.cms">Google will be probed by India’s Competition Commission for allegedly ‘abusing dominance’ to push its payments app</a>

‘Please don’t let this American giant kill Future,’ Kishore Biyani’s lawyers say Amazon knew about RIL-Future Retail deal from June

New Delhi, Apr 7 () The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of Christian Michel James, an alleged middleman arrested in connection with the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam cases, seeking interim bail on the grounds of risk of contracting coronavirus in Tihar jail.Justice Mukta Gupta, who conducted the hearing through video conferencing, said the apprehension of Michel that because of his vulnerable age and overcrowding in jail, he is likely to contact COVID-19 which may be detrimental to his health, is unfounded. "As regards the apprehension of the petitioner (Michel) being infected by COVID-19 pandemic, it may be noted that the petitioner is lodged in a separate cell with only two other prisoners and thus, is not in a barrack or dormitory where there are a number of prisons. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the two inmates residing with him are suffering from COVID-19."Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner also because of the vulnerable age and overcrowding in jail that he is likely to contact COVID-19 which may be detrimental to his health, is unfounded," the judge said, in the order passed on Monday and uploaded on the court's website on Tuesday. The ED and CBI, represented through advocates Amit Mahajan and D P Singh respectively, opposed the interim bail plea of Michel, saying he was lodged at the safest place in the country being the Tihar Jail and there is no threat of him coming in contact with any COVID-19 patient.The counsel also said that in Tihar Jail, each and every prisoner has been screened to check whether he is COVID-19 positive or not and no prisoner till date has been found to be suffering from the virus.The 59-year-old Michel claimed that his health condition was critical and incompatible with the current prison status, especially to cope up with the risk of contracting the COVID-19 infection which could have a lethal effect on him as he is already suffering from serious pathologies.Michel, extradited from Dubai, was arrested by the ED on December 22, 2018.On January 5 last year, he was sent to judicial custody in the ED case. He is also lodged in judicial custody in another case registered by the CBI in connection with the scam.Michel is among the three alleged middlemen being probed in the case by the ED and the CBI. The other two are Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa.The court, in its order, also noted that despite being a British national, Michel has not been residing in the United Kingdom for the last 6-7 years and had to be extradited from Dubai after an inquiry. After coming to know about the arrest of others in Italy, he fled to Dubai, the court noted, adding that Michel is thus a "flight risk and also has no roots in the society".It said the charge sheet has been filed by CBI and complaint by the Enforcement Directorate, and further investigations are pending in both the cases and at this stage, his release even on interim bail is not warranted."Hence, this court is not inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner. Applications are accordingly dismissed," the judge said.Last week, the apex court had asked Michel to first approach the high court with his plea."The age and a pre-existing ill state of health will make the applicant's (Michel) body more susceptible to the said infection than any other ordinary prisoner with a normal health condition. Further, the presence within prisons of subjects who are tested positive for Covid19 pose a threat to the applicant considering his existing health condition and age," the plea, through Vishnu Shankar and Aljo K Joseph, said.In his plea, he also referred to the Supreme Court's March 16 order directing all the states and union territories to constitute high-level committees to consider releasing on parole or interim bail prisoners and undertrials, for offences entailing upto 7-year jail term, to decongest jails in the wake of coronavirus pandemic.The high court said that pursuant to the apex court's March 23 order, a high powered committee of the high court laid down certain criterias for releasing the prisoners.It said Michel failed to qualify on three criterias laid down by the high powered committee, that is, being a foreign national, involved in more than one case not being on bail in others and the cases being under Prevention of Corruption Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It said that Michel's health condition be monitored and treated and he required an environment like home where the risk of contagion is lesser and social distancing can be effectively practiced. The regular bail plea of Michel, who was arrested in 2018 and is in judicial custody since January 5, 2019, is also pending before the high court where the CBI and ED have contended that he should not be granted the relief as he has a nexus with influential people and can influence witnesses.He has been denied bail in both the matters by the trial court. He has approached the high court against the lower court's decision.The special CBI court had denied him the relief, saying there was no sufficient ground to grant bail. SKV HMP DVDV

You Searched For "Mukta Gupta" and got 9 results