A Delhi court on Thursday accepted the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case against NDTV founders Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy over a loan advanced to them by ICICI Bank.

Special Judge (PC Act) Shailender Malik of the Rouse Avenue Court said,

"This Court accepts the closure report filed by CBI as no criminality or violation of Section 19(2) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 has been found by any of the accused."

The CBI had registered a case against Roys, RRPR Holdings and NDTV in 2017 on a complaint made by Sanjay Dutt, a director of M/s Quantum Security Private Limited. The complainant had stated that Roys and RRPR Holdings had obtained a loan to acquire a 20 per cent stake in NDTV. It was alleged that in connection with that, Roys and RRPR Holding then entered into a criminal conspiracy with officials of ICICI Bank.

"Under the conspiracy ICICI Bank advanced loan of Rs.375 crores and took over entire shareholding of above mentioned promoters of NDTV (nearly 61%), as collateral/pledged, in violation of Section 19(2) of Banking Regulation Act and under the said conspiracy ICICI accepted the repayment of loan by reducing the interest rate from 19% per annum to 9.5% per annum, resulting wrongful loss of Rs.48 crores to ICICI Bank and corresponding gain to above mentioned accused persons," the complaint alleged.

NDTV has since been taken over by the Adani Group. In the closure report filed last year, CBI said that ICICI Bank had reduced rate of interest in respect of 83 loan accounts during FY 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and such reduction in the case of the Roys and NDTV was not an isolated case.

"There was no collusion or criminal conspiracy or abuse of official position by any public servant or officers of ICICI bank for reduction of rate of interest from 19% to 9.65%. Even forensic audit of record of loan conducted by M/s Pramod Kumar and Associates, opined that there seems to be normal business transaction and by closing loan by ICICI Bank, there was no violation of Section 19(2) of Banking Regulation Act," the agency told the trial court.

Public Prosecutor Amjad Ali represented the CBI.

[Read Order]

The Allahabad High Court recently directed the authorities in Uttar Pradesh to inform it about the steps being taken to implement FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records) mechanism in the State.

FASTER is a technology that makes it easy for courts to transmit orders to courts. It was launched by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana in 2022.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal of the High Court took note of the fact that the Supreme Court in a number of cases has directed that once a bail order is issued by the concerned court, it should immediately be communicated to the jail authorities to avoid delay in release of prisoners.

“Therefore, it would be appropriate that just like Delhi, in U.P. also. the Courts' orders, including the bail orders, should be electronically sent to the jails for the earliest release of the prisoners,” the Bench said.

The single-judge, thus, directed the Director General (Prison) to appear before it on the next date through video conference and apprise the Court about the steps taken for effective implementation of this system so that the Courts' orders could be properly communicated to the prison authorities for earliest release of the prisoners.

“The Deputy Director General, NIC as well as Director General (Prison), U.P. will also inform this Court on the next date of listing whether the FASTER (Fast and Secure Transmission of Electronic Record) System can be implemented in U.P. for transmission of eauthenticated copies of the interim orders, stay orders, bail orders etc. for compliance and due execution, through a secured electronic communication channel as directed by the Apex Court,” the Court further ordered.

The Court was hearing a  matter in which it had previously issued directions to the district judiciary regarding maintaining the process register and for proper implementation of the process of court (summons, warrants etc).

On January 9, the Court was informed that the National Prisoner Information Portal is not functioning properly in UP. It directed the concerned authorities to look into the issue.

The Court also took note of shortage of staff in the district courts and asked the Registrar General to apprise it about the action being taken to fill up the vacancies. It will hear the matter next on January 31.

[Read Order]

356 lawyers have cleared the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record examination 2024.

101 candidates are eligible to re-appear as per regulation 11(i) of the Regulations regarding Advocates-on-Record Examination made under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

81 candidates are eligible to reappear as per Regulation 11(ii).

A total of 1,205 lawyers had applied for the exam though many remained absent.

Regulation 11(i) allows a candidate who has failed to obtain 50 percent in one paper, but has secured aggregate of 60 percent in remaining papers, to appear for that paper in a subsequent exam.

If the candidate then secures 50 percent for that paper in the subsequent exam and if the marks so obtained in the paper he has reappeared taken with the marks obtained in the remaining papers at the earlier examination are 60 percent of the aggregate mark, he/ she shall be declared to have passed the AoR exam.

Regulation 11(1ii) provides that if a candidate passes in all the papers at any single examination but fails to obtain 60 percent of the marks in the aggregate, he/ she can appear at anyone subsequent examination in one of the papers only and shall be declared to have passed the Advocates-on-Record Examination if the marks obtained by him at the subsequent examination taken with the marks obtained in the remaining papers at the earlier examination are 60 percent of the aggregate marks in all the papers.

[Read Results]

A Delhi court on Wednesday refused to order police investigation into a complaint against Delhi Art Gallery from where it recently ordered seizure of two paintings by famous artist late MF Husain.

However, the Court decided to proceed on the complaint filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva who has claimed that the paintings hurt the sentiments of Hindus.

The Court will now examine the accused persons to determine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed with the matter or not.

"This matter may be proceeded as a complaint case henceforth. Let notice be issued to proposed accused persons in terms of first proviso to section 223 BNSS for 12.02.2025," the Court ordered.

Judicial Magistrate First Class Sahil Monga noted that all the facts and circumstances of the case are within the knowledge of the complainant and CCTV footage of Delhi Art Gallery, video recorder and the paintings in question have already been seized.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application seeking directions for registration of FIR against the accused.

"It is settled law that U/s. 175(3) BNSS, Magistrate has power to direct the police to register a case and investigate the matter, but this power is to be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical manner. In the matters where the complainant has in his/her possession all the evidence required to prove his/her allegations, there should be no need to pass an order U/s. 175 (3) BNSS," the Court said.

Sachdeva had seen the paintings while on a visit to the gallery on December 4, 2024. She deemed them to be offensive and then lodged a complaint with the police.

When she visited the gallery with the investigation officer on December 10, the paintings had allegedly been removed. She then approached the Court seeking directions for FIR against the art gallery and preservation of evidence.

An action taken report by the police said that the paintings in question were displayed as part of an exhibition held in a private space. The paintings were only to display the original work of the artists, it added.

Following a court order, the paintings were seized. However, the Police said commission of cognizable offence could not be ascertained.

Senior Advocate Markand Adkar with Advocates Vikram Kumar, Yadavendra Saxena, Santanu Adkar, Ankush Mahajan and Abhinav Kumar represented complainant Amita Sachdeva, who appeared in person.

[Read Order]

A court in Mumbai on Tuesday convicted filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma and sentenced him to three months of simple imprisonment in a cheque bounce case.

The case, which dates back seven years, was filed by a company named Shree, represented by Maheshchandra Mishra, against Varma’s firm under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Andheri Magistrate Court found Varma guilty and sentenced him to three months in prison.

Additionally, Varma was directed to pay a compensation of ₹3.72 lakh to the complainant within three months. If the compensation is not paid within the given timeframe, Varma will face another three months of imprisonment.

As Varma was absent during the proceedings, the Court issued a non-bailable warrant for his arrest, instructing the concerned police station to execute the sentence. The Court also clarified that Varma has not spent any time in custody during the trial and hence, there is no provision for a set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In response to the Court’s decision, Varma took to social media, stating that the case relates to a cheque of ₹2,38,000 from a former employee. He emphasized that his legal team is addressing the matter and, as the case is still before the Court, he cannot comment further.

"With regard to the news about me and Andheri court, I want to clarify that it is to do with a 7 year old case of Rs 2 lakh 38 thousand amount , relating to my ex-employee .. My advocates are attending to it. and since the matter is in court I cannot say anything further,” he posted on X.

Ram Gopal Varma, known for his works such as Rangeela, Satya, Company, Bhoot, Sarkar and Kaun, has been a significant figure in the Indian film industry.