Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

Following statements made by <keyword id="198572" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Madhabi-Puri-Buch" source="Orion">Madhabi Puri Buch</keyword> and her husband <keyword id="192394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dhaval-Buch" source="Orion">Dhaval Buch</keyword>, concerning allegations raised by <keyword id="9916845" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Hindenburg-Research" source="Orion">Hindenburg Research</keyword> on August 10, the US short seller has posed new questions for the <keyword id="20914154" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI-Chairperson" source="keywords">SEBI Chairperson</keyword> alleging that her response contained several significant admissions and raised critical new questions. In a social media post on 'X', the US short seller stated that "<keyword id="35210" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI" source="Orion">SEBI</keyword> Chairperson <keyword id="19557079" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Madhabi-Buch" source="Orion">Madhabi Buch</keyword>'s response to our report includes several important admissions and raises numerous new critical questions." Further the post said that the <keyword id="84055" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI-chief" source="Orion">SEBI chief</keyword>'s response confirms her investment in an obscure Bermuda/Mauritius fund structure, alongside money allegedly siphoned by Vinod Adani. "SEBI was tasked with investigating investment funds relating to the Admatter, which would include funds Ms Buch was personally invested in and funds by the same sponsor which were specifically highlighted in our original report. This is obviously a massive conflict of interest," <keyword id="191733" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Hindenburg" source="Orion">Hindenburg</keyword> alleged. The US short seller also raised concerns about the financial statements of SEBI Chief's Singapore consulting entities during her tenure at SEBI. "The Singaporean consulting entity she set up doesn't publicly report its financials like revenue or profit, so it's impossible to see how much money this entity has earned during her time at SEBI. The Indian entity, still 99 per cent owned by the SEBI Chairperson, has generated Rs 23.985 million (US ~ USD 312,000) in revenue (i.e. consulting) during the financial years ('22, '23, and '24), while she was serving as Chairperson, per its financial statements," said Hindenburg. Hindenburg also alleged that <keyword id="22754143" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="whistleblower-documents" source="Orion">whistleblower documents</keyword> have revealed that Buch used her personal email to conduct business under her husband's name while serving as a whole-time member of SEBI. In 2017, just weeks before her appointment, she ensured that accounts with ties to Adani were registered solely in the name of her husband, Dhaval Buch. Earlier, the SEBI Chairperson and her husband had said that the investment in the fund referred to in the Hindenurg report was made before she had taken up the job. The statement said, "The investment in the fund referred to in the Hindenburg report was made in 2015 when they were both private citizens living in Singapore and almost 2 years before Madhabi joined SEBI, even as a Whole Time Member. " "The decision to invest in this fund was because the Chief Investment Officer, Anil Ahuja, is Dhaval's childhood friend from school and IIT Delhi and, being an ex-employee of Citibank, J.P. Morgan and 3i Group plc, had many decades of a strong investing career. The fact that these were the drivers of the investment decision is borne out by the fact that when, in 2018, Ahuja, left his position as CIO of the fund, we redeemed the investment in that fund," the statement further reads."As confirmed by Anil Ahuja, at no point in time did the fund invest in any bond, equity, or derivative of any Adani group company," the statement had added. On Saturday, the US-based firm alleged that SEBI's Chairperson Madhabi Buch and her husband had a stake in "both the obscure offshore entities used in the Adani money siphoning scandal" In January 2023, Hindenburg published a report accusing the Adani Group of financial irregularities, leading to a significant drop in the company's stock price. The group at the time had rubbished these claims. In January 2024, the Supreme Court refused to transfer the probe into the allegations of stock price manipulation by the Adani group to an SIT and directed market regulator SEBI to complete its probe into two pending cases within three months. Earlier this year the SC also dismissed a plea seeking to review the verdict that had sought investigation by the market watchdog SEBI in the <keyword id="16435872" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Adani-Hindenburg-case" source="Orion">Adani-Hindenburg case</keyword>.

Hindenburg poses new questions for SEBI Chairperson after she denies allegations

New Delhi [India], May 14 (ANI): Actor <keyword id="19956789" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Jackie-Shroff" source="keywords">Jackie Shroff</keyword> has approached the <keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords">Delhi High Court</keyword> to seek protection of his personality and <keyword id="21653032" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="publicity-rights" source="keywords">publicity rights</keyword>. The suit has been filed against various entities using his name, photographs, voice and word "<keyword id="19960424" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bhidu" source="keywords">Bhidu</keyword>" without his consent. Through this suit, actor Jackie Shroff seeks direction to protect the Plaintiff's name, voice, image, likeness, and all other elements of the Plaintiff's persona which are distinctive and the unauthorized use by third parties is likely to create confusion and deception amongst the public. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula on Tuesday issued a summons on the actor's suit and said it will consider the case tomorrow on the interim injunction application. The actor seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's personality rights and publicity rights by the use of the Plaintiff's name 'Jackie Shroff", "Jackie', '<keyword id="21052256" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="jaggu-dada" source="keywords">Jaggu Dada</keyword>', 'Bhidu' voice, image and any other attribute which is exclusively identifiable with him for any commercial or personal gain. The plea asks the court to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant Bhidu Shawarma restaurant and its associates, servants, agents, affiliates, holding companies, and representatives, from infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademark by using the same as part of its trade name 'Bhidu Shawarma &amp; Restaurant' or any other trade name/trade mark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark numbers. The suit also pertains to the violation of the Plaintiff's moral rights in his performances conferred upon him by virtue of section 38B of the <keyword id="21653033" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="copyright-act" source="keywords">Copyright Act</keyword>, 1957. The Plaintiff, as an actor has acted in many cinematographic films and thus enjoys moral rights in his performances in such films and is entitled to restrain any third party from distorting, mutilating or making other modifications to his performance that are prejudicial to his reputation. In the context of the claims in the present proceedings, the Defendants are extracting clips of movies or other cinematographic works which contain performances of the Plaintiff, for the purpose of creation, communication of graphic/ interchange formats (GIFs), etc. The suit states that Plaintiff has not been informed prior to the creation and dissemination of such GIFs, nor has his consent been sought or secured. The Defendants, by reproducing clips containing the Plaintiff's performance, and that too in a manner which brings disrepute to the Plaintiff and makes him the subject of unsavoury humour, are violating his moral rights in his performances. The misappropriation of any attribute of the Plaintiff's persona without his express permission for a commercial purpose is liable to be restrained not only on the basis of the traditional conception of publicity rights namely the exclusive right to commercially exploit one's persona but also on the basis of the tort of dilution, more particularly tarnishment. Recently, the Delhi High Court also restrained the unauthorised use of actor Anil Kapoor's personality or name for commercial purposes. In the year 2022, Amitabh Bachchan had also moved the Delhi HC against the illegal use of his voice and image. (ANI)

Jackie Shroff moves Delhi HC, files suit against entities using his name, voice and word "Bhidu" without consent

You Searched For "containment cases in delhi" and got 2 results

Hindenburg poses new questions for SEBI Chairperson after she denies allegations

ANI

Jackie Shroff moves Delhi HC, files suit against entities using his name, voice and word "Bhidu" without consent

ANI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides