Archives for 2016

Bengaluru: In a huge relief to senior BJP leader and former Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa, a special CBI court here today acquitted him along with his two sons and son-in-law in a Rs 40 crore illegal mining case.

In a judgement delivered at a packed court hall, Judge R B Dharmagouder also exonerated nine other accused in the kickback case which had cost Yeddyurappa his Chief Ministership in 2011 following indictment by the then Lok Ayukta Santosh Hegde.

CBI had filed a chargesheet in October 2015 against Yeddyurappa, his sons B Y Raghavendra and B Y Vijayendra and son-in-law Sohan Kumar, a Bellary-based private steel company and a Shimoga based Trust run by the family of Yeddyurappa for alleged abuse of official position and corruption.

The case also saw Yeddyurappa spend about three weeks in jail in October 2011 in connection with the case before he was granted bail.

The accused had been charged with criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and corruption, according to the CBI chargesheet which had alleged involvement of Rs.40 crore kickbacks, including Rs 20 crore that was allegedly paid to a trust run by the Yeddyurappa’s family, for granting favours, including mining licenses, during his chief ministership.

“Satyameva Jayathe. Justice is done. I stand vindicated,” a relieved Yeddyurappa tweeted shortly after the verdict.

“I am happy that false allegations and politically motivated charges have been dismissed,” the state BJP strongman, who has returned as the state BJP chief earlier this year, told reporters.

He said the court verdict had come as a relief to lakhs of BJP workers and gave a “new fillip” to him to bring back the party to power in the next Assembly polls in Karnataka.

(Agencies)

Dr G Moinoddin
MS, FMAS, FALBS (MUMBAI)
FBS (AHMD)
F.ENDO,FRLCRS (SOUTH KOREA)
Consultant Baraitric and Laparoscopic Surgeon.

Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health.

People are generally considered obese when their body mass index (BMI), a measurement obtained by dividing a person’s weight by the square of the person’s height, is over 30 kg/m2, with the range 25-30 kg/m2 defined as overweight. Cut off BMI for Indians in 2 points less.

Obesity increases the likelihood of various diseases, particularly heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, certain types of cancer, and osteoarthritis.

All surgeries performed laparoscopically with 0.5 cm to 1.2 cm incision usually leave no scar after few months.

Bariatric Surgery cures or relieves following obesity-related diseases:

1. Diabetes
2. Hypertension
3. Hypercholesteremia
4. Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
5. Sleep Apnea
6. Joint Points
7. Sub Clinical Hypothyroidism
8. Fatty Liver and improves Cardiac and Renal Function.

Most patients can expect to lose 85 to 90% of their excess body weight over a 6-12 month period with the sleeve gastrectomy alone.

Vijay Mallya. Photo: Reuters

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today directed beleaguered businessman Vijay Mallya to give complete details of his assets outside India in four weeks, saying it was of the “prima facie view” that he has not made proper disclosure of his assets.

A bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman also pulled up Mallya for not giving details of USD 40 million which he had received from British firm Diageo on February this year.

“We are prima facie of the view that the report has not made a proper disclosure in respect of our order of April 7, 2016, directing to make complete disclosure of assests and in particular, the receipt of USD 40 million as when it was received and how it has been dealt till date,” the bench said.

It also asked Mallya, who had earlier informed the court about his properties in India, to disclose complete details of his assets abroad in four weeks.

The bench posted the matter for further hearing on November 24.

A consortium of banks including SBI had on August 29 told the Supreme Court that Mallya had deliberately not made full disclosure of his assets including the USD 40 million which he received on February 25 from the British firm Diageo.

On July 25, the apex court, after noting the submissions by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, had issued notice to Mallya on the banks’ plea and asked him to respond.
Rohatgi told the court that Mallya had provided wrong details of his assets in a sealed cover to the apex court.

AG had further alleged that a lot of information had also been concealed, including a cash transaction to the tune of Rs 2500 crore, which amounted to contempt of court.

Rohatgi had said that the liquor baron had also not agreed to deposit “substantial amount” as part of of Rs 9,400 crore loan due on him to establish his bonafide.

Mallya had maintained that the banks had no right over information regarding his overseas movable and immovable assets as he was an NRI since 1988.

Mallya had also claimed that as an NRI, he was not obliged to disclose his overseas assets, and added that his wife and three children, all US citizens, also need not disclose their assets.

The court on April 7 had directed Mallya to disclose by April 21 the total assets owned by him and his family in India and abroad while seeking an indication from him when he would appear before it.

It had asked Mallya, who owes over Rs 9,000 crore to around 17 banks, to deposit a “substantial amount” with it to “prove his bonafide” that he was “serious” about meaningful negotiations and settlement.

(PTI)

New Delhi: The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it won’t reconsider its 1995 judgment in which it defined Hindutva a “a way of life and not a religion.”

The SC’s statement came on a plea filed by activist Teesta Setalvad who wanted the court to reconsider that judgment even as five states head to the polls next year. Her plea was to not only redefine Hindutva, but also to ban its use in elections.

Setalvad’s plea also came in the context of the top court already examining a politically explosive question arising out of a separate plea filed in 1990. That question is – Will a religious leader’s appeal to his followers to vote for a particular political party amount to electoral malpractice under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act.

The SC said today it is not examining the larger issue of whether Hindutva means Hindu religion, and whether the use of Hindutva in elections is permissible. The 7-judge SC bench said it is examining a nexus between religious leaders and candidates and its legality under Section 123 (3) of the Representation of People Act.

The ambit of Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, provides for the disqualification of a candidate, if he, or any one on his behalf, is found “promoting or attempting to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, for furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate”.

The 1990 plea the SC is considering is to do with the Maharashtra assembly polls where Shiv Sena and BJP candidates allegedly used two speeches by Bal Thackeray and Pramod Mahajan – both now deceased – to seek votes in the name of Hindutva and the Hindu rashtra. Petitions were filed against many winning candidates of Shiv Sena and BJP in 1990 and the Bombay HC disqualified them.

On appeal, the SC reversed the judgments in all but two cases. One was later dismissed but the other was kept pending.

(Agencies)