#ED arrests ex #RCOM president Punit Garg in Rs 40k cr. bank 'fraud' case

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday said it has arrested former Reliance Communications (RCOM) president Punit Garg on money laundering charges in an alleged Rs 40,000 crore worth bank loan fraud case.

According to a ED press statement probe shows he diverted Proceeds of Crime to offshore entities, and used POC for his children’s overseas education. He also fraudulently sold a $8.3 million luxury condo in Manhattan, New York and siphoned the sale proceeds to a Dubai based entity. The Hon’ble Special Court (PMLA), Rouse Avenue has granted ED 9 day custody while investigation continues.

#Korean inspired recipe video series by Mother’s Recipe

Mother’s Recipe has launched Korean inspired recipes to everyday kitchens with a new digital first video series using its Chinese Sauces.

Speaking about the campaign, Sanjana Desai, Executive Director, Mother’s Recipe, said, “Home cooking has always been about care. What is changing is the kind of flavours people want to bring into their kitchens. We are seeing more consumers, especially young adults, explore global cuisines at home and Korean food is a great example of that. This series is our way of making those recipes feel simpler to try. With our Chinese Sauces, we can bring the flavour together quickly, without taking away from the joy of cooking.”

The series features Korean Spicy Paneer made using Soya Bean Sauce, Garlic Chilli Sauce and Red Chilli Sauce, Korean Spicy Noodles made using Desi Szechwan Sauce, Green Chilli Sauce, Soya Bean Sauce and Chilli Vinegar and Korean Bibimbap made using Chilli Vinegar and Soya Bean Sauce. Korean Fried Rice and Korean Veg Dakgalbi bring the same comfort and punch using Mother’s Recipe sauces, helping recreate Korean style favourites with ingredients that are easy to find. Each recipe is designed to be easy to follow with clear steps that help viewers cook confidently even if it is their first attempt at Korean style food.

New #roadsafety awareness initiative by Zuno General Ins.

 

Zuno General Insurance (formerly Edelweiss General Insurance) has launched new road safety awareness initiative.

Commenting on the initiative, Shanai Ghosh, MD & CEO, Zuno General Insurance said, “At Zuno, we believe that road safety is a shared responsibility, and that positive reinforcement can be a powerful nudge towards better driving behaviour. Over the years, we’ve built initiatives that go beyond awareness from on-ground movements like Talking Zebra to product innovations like our mobile telematics-led Zuno SmartDrive car insurance, which rewards safe and responsible drivers. We aim to go beyond awareness and actively shape driving behaviour in the country. Through this initiative, we want to celebrate good drivers and encourage others to join them too, making Indian roads safer”. 

Starting Tuesday, 20th January, and running through the month, the activation will be rolled out across select traffic signals in 8 cities - Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Goa and Guntur.

The Road Accidents in India Report (2022) recorded 4,61,312 crashes, leading to 1,68,491 fatalities and 4,43,366 injuries. On average, India witnesses 53 crashes and 92 deaths every hour, underscoring the urgent need for continued road safety efforts. According to global data, India witnesses the highest number of road accidents in the world.

Section 47 objections can only be invoked during the pendency of execution proceedings #SupremeCourt

In the landmark judgment of Ananda Chandra Panda (Dead) thru LRs v. The Collector, Keonjhar & Another (2026 INSC 91), the Supreme Court of India provided a definitive interpretation of the timing and scope of Section 47 of the CPC.

This case is a significant precedent for ensuring that litigation does not become an endless loop. Here is the detailed breakdown:

1. Case Context: The "Zombie" Objection

The dispute centered on a land possession decree. In 2006, the Executing Court recorded that the decree was "fully satisfied" (the property was handed over) based on the reports of the Court Commissioner and the bailiff.

The Twist: Several months after the court officially closed the case as satisfied, the Respondent (the Collector) filed an application under Section 47, claiming that the wrong plot of land had been delivered.

2. The Supreme Court's Verdict

The Bench (Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) overturned the High Court’s decision and laid down the following strict rules:

The "Pendency" Requirement: Section 47 can only be invoked while the execution proceedings are still pending.

Post-Satisfaction Bar: Once a court records "full satisfaction" of the decree and the case is closed, the Executing Court becomes functus officio (its authority is exhausted). You cannot use Section 47 to reopen a case that is legally dead.

The Principle of Finality: Allowing objections after a decree is satisfied would mean no winner could ever be sure their case is truly over. The court emphasized that judicial proceedings must reach a final conclusion.

Key Quote from the Judgment:

"Questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction must be determined during the process of execution... and not subsequently when the proceeding is closed."

If you are a Decree Holder (the winner), this judgment protects you from last-minute hurdles after you've already received your dues. If you are a Judgment Debtor (the loser), it means you must be extremely vigilant; if you don't raise your Section 47 objections immediately during the execution process, you lose the right to raise them forever.

In legal practice, Section 151 is most frequently used in execution proceedings to obtain an Interim Stay.

While Section 47 allows the court to decide your objection, it doesn't automatically stop the bailiff from knocking on your door or the auctioneer from selling your property. You need Section 151 to "freeze" the situation.

How Section 151 Secures an Interim Stay

When you file your Section 47 objection, you simultaneously invoke Section 151 to ask for a stay. The court follows a specific logic to grant this:

Prima Facie Case: You must show the judge that your objection isn't just a delay tactic—there is a genuine legal point to be settled (e.g., "The decree says Plot A, but they are seizing Plot B").

Irreparable Loss: You must demonstrate that if the stay isn't granted, the damage will be permanent (e.g., "If my house is demolished today, winning the Section 47 objection tomorrow won't bring it back").

Balance of Convenience: The court weighs who will suffer more. Usually, a short delay in execution is seen as less harmful than a permanent, wrongful loss of property.

Following the Ananda Chandra Panda (2026) logic, courts are now very wary of "Stay Applications." If the judge suspects you are using Section 151 just to buy time, they may:

Grant a stay only if you deposit a security amount in court.

Impose heavy costs if your Section 47 objection is later found to be frivolous.

Set a very strict time limit (e.g., "Stay granted for 15 days only").

New Paradise Food Court outlet launched at Phoenix Mall of Asia in #Bangalore

Paradise Food Court has launched its new outlet at Phoenix Mall of Asia in Bangalore. The 57th outlet of Paradise will offer a wide array of legendary Hyderabadi cuisine to customers in the cosmopolitan city of Bangalore. 

"Our choice of the current location is also strategic in that we can bring our cuisine closer to as many customers as possible," said Abhik Mitra -MD & CEO, Paradise Food Court Pvt. Ltd.

"We have ensured that our menu brings innovation in addition to the legendary foods we have been serving for decades with each passing season," added Robinder Singh, COO – Paradise Food Court Pvt. Ltd.

Paradise Food Court entered Limca Book of Records for ‘Most Biryanis Served in a Year’, serving over 90 lakh plates in 2018 alone. The brand has also won multiple awards, including the Asia Food Congress Award, Golden Spoon Award, and recognitions from GHMC, Times Food Awards, and Pride of Telangana.

#SC declines to issue #writ to enforce min. wage for domestic workers

The apex court observed that while the plight of domestic workers is real, the judiciary cannot encroach upon the legislative domain.

The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a comprehensive legal framework and enforcement of minimum wages for domestic workers, holding that it cannot issue a writ directing the Centre and states to amend or enact laws.

In the case of Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 42/2026), the Supreme Court of India addressed a critical Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the rights and welfare of domestic workers.

On January 29, 2026, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi delivered a significant observation regarding the limits of judicial intervention in labour policy and legislative matters.

Core Issues of the Case

The petition, filed by the women workers' union Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam, sought several reliefs for domestic workers—a group that remains one of the most vulnerable and unorganized sectors in India:

Minimum Wage Enforcement: A direction to the Centre and States to enforce a mandatory minimum wage for domestic workers.

Constitutional Recognition: A declaration that non-payment of minimum wages violates Articles 14 (Equality), 21 (Life and Liberty), and 23 (Prohibition of Forced Labour).

Legal Framework: The creation of a comprehensive statutory framework to regulate working conditions, registration, and social security for household help.

The Supreme Court's Decision

The Court refused to entertain the PIL, citing the principle of "separation of powers." Key highlights from the bench's reasoning include:

1. Limits on Judicial Mandate

The CJI noted that the reliefs sought were "legislative in nature." The Court clarified that it cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Parliament or State Legislatures to enact or amend specific laws.

2. Economic and Social Concerns

The bench expressed caution that judicial interference might lead to unintended negative consequences:

Hiring Reluctance: The Court worried that if strict minimum wages were enforced by judicial decree, many households might stop hiring help, leading to job losses.

Litigation Risks: The CJI remarked that over-zealous trade unions might "drag every household into litigation," turning homes into "battlefields."

3. State Responsibility

The Court observed that while some States have already included domestic workers under the Minimum Wages Act, others have not. It stated that the matter is under "active consideration" by several State governments and suggested that the petitioners should continue to lobby the executive branch rather than the judiciary.

Current Status

The petition was disposed of. The Supreme Court did not dismiss the "plight" of the workers but emphasized that the solution must come from the Legislature and the Executive.

While the Supreme Court in Penn Thozhilalargal Sangam vs. Union of India (2026) declined to force a national law, it highlighted that:

State Progress: Many states are already moving toward social security (e.g., Karnataka’s 2025 Draft Bill).

Registration Drives: States like Karnataka and Maharashtra have launched special drives (Jan–March 2026) to register these workers on the e-Shram portal to provide accidental insurance and pension benefits.

Note: Enforcement remains the biggest challenge. Unlike a factory, a "household" is a private space, making it difficult for labour inspectors to verify if minimum wages are actually being paid.

Outcome: The petitioners were encouraged to continue highlighting the issues to the relevant State and Union stakeholders, with the Court expressing hope that a "suitable mechanism" would be deployed for their welfare.

Indriya jewellery brand showcased at #ParisCoutureWeek

Indriya, a jewellery brand from Aditya Birla Group, showcases its collection for the first time-ever at #ParisCoutureWeek in collaboration with renowned designer #GauravGupta as the official jewellery partner.

Indriya, a jewellery brand from Aditya Birla Group showcases its collection for the first time-ever at Paris Couture Week in collaboration with renowned designer Gaurav Gupta as the official jewellery partner. Known for its focus on fine craftsmanship and design superiority, Indriya takes the artistry of Indian jewellery to one of the world’s most prestigious fashion platforms with this partnership.

This season, Gaurav Gupta’s couture draws inspiration from the concept of dualities, elements that coexist and complete one another, rooted in Ardhanarishvara, the divine union of the masculine and feminine. The collection explores contrasts that shape creation itself, such as structure and fluidity, form and formlessness, strength and grace.

Anchored in India’s rich aesthetics and cultural heritage, Indriya’s designs continue Gaurav Gupta’s sculptural couture vocabulary, precise, luminous and sculptural. The jewellery pieces enhance the fluid and structured architecture of the garments. Jewels become points of light that move with the wearer, connecting body, craft and couture.

Couturier Gaurav Gupta said, “Jewellery, for me, is not an embellishment of the body, but an extension of its inner geometry. In The Divine Androgyne, each form becomes a vessel of energy, memory, and quiet power. Working with Indriya felt instinctive, their language of heritage and ornament offered the perfect balance of tradition and restraint, complementing the collection without ever overpowering it.”

Creative Director: Gaurav Gupta

Styling: Dena Neustadter Giannini

Art Director: Sandeep Gill

Casting Director: Aymeric

Jewellery: Indriya Jewels

Make-Up: Marieke Thibaut, MAC Cosmetics

Hair: Laurent Philippon , Kerastase

Shoes: Rene Caovilla

Crystals: Crystals by Preciosa

Music: Gaurav Raina, Curtain Blue, Komorebi

Production: Petit Ami Paris

Videography by: Paraffin Films

Authenticity of a #signature does not prove validity of a #Will

The "Annie Thomas" ruling by Supreme Court reinforces that probate law is not just about the authenticity of a signature; it is about the solemnity of the execution process.

The case of Annie Thomas v. Rani Thomas & Ors. is a significant 2026 legal precedent from the Supreme Court of India concerning the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act.

Specifically, the judgment addresses the legal requirements for proving a Will, even in instances where the signature of the testator (the person who made the Will) is not in dispute.

 

Case Summary and Legal Principles

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on January 27, 2026, overturning a previous direction by the Kerala High Court.

The Core Dispute

The legal battle centered on a disputed Will. The Kerala High Court had originally directed that the Will be sent to a handwriting expert to verify the testator’s signature. However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, the appellant (Annie Thomas) admitted that the signature on the Will was indeed authentic. The actual dispute was whether the testator had provided free will and consent at the time of execution.

 The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order for a handwriting expert, stating it was unnecessary since the signature was undisputed. Instead, the Court clarified two critical statutory requirements:

Undisputed Signatures \neq Valid Will: Even if all parties agree the signature is real, the Will is not automatically proved. It must still undergo formal legal scrutiny.

Mandatory Statutory Compliance: The Will must be proved strictly under the following provisions:

Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Requires the testimony of at least one attesting witness to prove the execution.

Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: Dictates the specific manner in which a Will must be signed and witnessed.

The testimony requirements emphasized by the Court can be broken down into three key legal hurdles:

1. The "Scribe" vs. "Attesting Witness" Distinction

One of the most critical aspects of the judgment was the Court’s refusal to accept the scribe (the person who wrote the Will) as an attesting witness.

The Rule: A scribe’s role is purely clerical—to record the testator's wishes.

The Testimony Gap: In this case, the scribe’s testimony was rejected because he did not personally know the testator and had no "animus attestandi" (intention to attest as a witness). The Court clarified that unless a scribe specifically signs as a witness at the testator's request, their signature carries no weight in proving the Will's execution.

2. Requirements under Section 68 of the Evidence Act

Even though the signature was admitted, the Court held that the propounder (the person claiming the Will is valid) must still examine at least one attesting witness. The testimony must prove:

That the testator signed the Will in the presence of the witness.

That the witness signed the Will in the presence of the testator.

The Failure in this Case: The sole witness examined (DW-3) gave "vague" testimony. He could not identify who the other witnesses were or confirm if they were all present at the same time, which is a requirement under Section 63(c) of the Succession Act.

3. The Onus to Dispel "Suspicious Circumstances"

The Court reiterated that the person presenting the Will has a "heavy burden" to explain any suspicious circumstances. Testimony must address:

Mental Capacity: Proof that the testator was in a "sound and disposing state of mind."

Free Will: Testimony must affirmatively show the absence of coercion or "undue influence," especially if the Will's provisions seem unnatural (e.g., excluding close legal heirs without explanation).

Key Legal Takeaway

The "Annie Thomas" ruling reinforces that probate law is not just about the authenticity of a signature; it is about the solemnity of the execution process. The court must be satisfied that the testator was of sound mind and free from undue influence, regardless of whether the signature is admitted as genuine.

HDB #Financial Services Partners with Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India as Preferred Financier

HDB Financial Services (HDBFS) a retail-focused Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) has  partnered with Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India (HMSI). HDB Financial Services will serve as a preferred financing partner across HMSI’s dealer network in India.

As part of this collaboration, customers can benefit from a simplified financing experience with customized loan-to-value (LTV) offerings for individual customer profiles, minimal documentation based largely on basic KYC, and fast turnaround times.

Commenting on the partnership, Karthik Srinivasan, Chief Business Officer, HDB Financial Services, said, “This collaboration with Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India allows us to deepen our presence in India’s rapidly growing two-wheeler segment. By combining our financing expertise with Honda’s strong market reach, we aim to deliver speed, simplicity and value to customers at the point of purchase.”

 

Yogesh Mathur, Director – Sales and Marketing, Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India, added, “This association with HDB Financial Services marks a significant milestone in Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India’s journey toward building a robust and future ready financing ecosystem. "

HDBFS has a wide omni-channel distribution network comprising 1,771 branches in over 1,170 cities as of March 31, 2025.The Company is accredited with CARE AAA and CRISIL AAA ratings for its term loans from banks and financial institutions, and a CARE A1+ rating for its commercial paper. 

 

Public Interest vs. Individual Rights : #SupremeCourt upholds cancellation of plot in #Patna

In the case of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority vs. Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 89), the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on the priority of collective public interest over individual commercial rights.  

The ruling (uploaded on January 27, 2026) addressed a long-standing dispute regarding the cancellation of land allotted for a commercial venture in favor of institutional expansion

Case Summary & Background

The dispute originated from the allotment of 2.55 acres of land in the Patliputra Industrial Area to M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. in 2007. The company intended to build a shopping mall-cum-multiplex. However, in 2009, BIADA cancelled the allotment because the land was required for the expansion and development of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Patna.  

The Single Judge View: Initially, a Single Judge of the Patna High Court refused to quash the cancellation, citing larger public interest.  

The Division Bench View: On appeal, a Division Bench interfered and sided with the private company, prompting BIADA to move the Supreme Court.  

 Key Rulings by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the cancellation order. The court's primary findings included:  

Public Interest over Individual Rights: The Court held that while individual rights (like those of an allottee) deserve respect, they cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than the "collective public interest."  

Expansion of IIT as "Public Good": The expansion of a premier educational institution like IIT was deemed a significant public necessity that outweighed the commercial benefits of a shopping mall.  

Discretionary Writ Jurisdiction: The Bench emphasized that High Courts should be cautious in intra-court appeals. If a Single Judge’s view is plausible and serves the public interest, the Division Bench should not substitute it with its own view just because another interpretation is possible.  

Mandate for Land Use: To ensure the land is not misused, the Court mandated that the plot must not be used for any commercial purpose and must be utilized strictly and exclusively for educational activities.  

Final Directions

To balance the equities, the Supreme Court directed BIADA to:

Refund the amount deposited by M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Pay interest on the refunded amount to compensate for the time elapsed.

In the judgment of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority vs. Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 89), the Supreme Court directed BIADA to refund the amount deposited by the company along with 9% simple interest per annum.

The Court arrived at this figure to balance the scales of justice—recognizing that while the company lost its commercial opportunity to the "greater public good" (the IIT Patna expansion), it deserved to be fairly compensated for the capital that had been locked with the authority since 2007.

Key Takeaway on Compensation

The Court utilized its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution (or its inherent discretionary powers in writ jurisdiction) to ensure that the private entity was not left in a state of "financial ruin" despite the lawful cancellation of the allotment.

Note: This judgment serves as a significant precedent for urban planning and industrial development cases where the government seeks to reclaim land for essential public infrastructure.