Mumbai: Observing that a ground reality report by a four-member panel prima facie indicates non-compliance with air pollution control guidelines at all 36 sites surveyed, Bombay high court directed BMC chief Bhushan Gagrani and Maharashtra Pollution Control Board’s (MPCB) member-secretary to appear in person on Tuesday morning. “We have formed a prima facie opinion that the municipal commissioner and the member secretary of MPCB should personally explain the inaction on the part of the officers concerned”, said a bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad. It orally said stop-work notices ought to be issued at non-compliant sites.The court-appointed panel’s report indicated that on-ground implementation of civic guidelines to curb air pollution was lacking, and compliance, where seen, was “cosmetic”.The panel found a “recurring pattern of incomplete or inconsistent compliance” at the bullet train project site, a ready-mix concrete (RMC) plant and the Metro 2B site at BKC. “The RMC plant showed the most serious non-compliance,” it said. It said demolition activities in Bandra East at the govt colony where the new HC complex is planned were found to be “generating massive amounts of dust and debris, which were scattered openly across premises” with “no barricades, wet coverings or dust suppression mechanisms in place”. Senior counsel Darius Khambata, the amicus curiae (friend of the court to assist), cited and read findings from the report. Senior counsel S U Kamdar for BMC sought the matter be deferred by a few days to enable the civic chief to read the report. The CJ-led bench orally said, “Nothing doing… Not even one day. We are summoning them [on Tuesday].” The bench, hearing a suo motu PIL to tackle rising air pollution in Mumbai and neighbouring areas, asked if the sites visited by the panel members—advocates Karan Bhosale, Namrata Vinod and Anand Mallya, and forest conservator Anita Patil—were compliant. Khambata said none were. Senior counsel Ashutosh Kumbhakoni for MPCB said action would be taken and was being contemplated. The CJ, dictating the order, said, “We have been taken through some parts of the report prepared by the court-appointed committee running into 74 pages.“Khambata said the report prepared by the committee and the observations and findings demonstrate a complete lack of monitoring of the polluting sites. “We have also taken note of the fact that steps were taken by the authorities after this court took suo motu cognisance of the poor air quality in Mumbai and the surrounding areas. The report dated Dec 15 was after the panel visited sites where AQI (air quality index) was poor,” said HC. The panel found the condition of MPCB’s air monitoring station in Mahape, Navi Mumbai, to be deeply alarming, reflecting systemic neglect and operational failure. “The outdoor air quality display was completely non-functional, down since at least Dec 11,” it said. At Fort, Cuffe Parade and Colaba in south Mumbai, it found poor adherence to BMC’s guidelines at four construction and redevelopment sites. The issues involved were not minor lapses but fundamental shortcomings in basic dust control and site management measures, although there was significant scope for corrective action, it said. The report said three of the four were “almost entirely non-compliant with the basic pollution control and safety measures” required under the BMC guidelines. At one site, an AQI monitor was installed, but its placement was on the ground floor of the 20-storey under-construction building. The remaining three sites showed widespread and repeated breaches of the required norms, the report said. Compliance across 17 under-construction sites, three RMC plants, seven road sites and five infrastructure sites was more “reactive, rather than proactive,” with compliance intensifying after HC’s suo motu PIL hearing following the recent spike in Mumbai’s AQI. “Water sprinklers, fogging and smog guns are deployed in a limited, ad hoc or cosmetic manner and appear largely confined to areas where authorities claim clear jurisdiction”, and vehicles carrying demolition waste had no tracking system, while road cleaning activities were “often spreading pollution”, not suppressing it, with no wetting measures, the panel said. It recommended “urgent action” to ensure complete implementation of existing guidelines, real-time monitoring, centralised data integration, differential standards by activity type and accountability at every site. Without these measures, it cautioned, the AQI will deteriorate further and “public health risk will persist unabated”.

Jacob Duffy of New Zealand (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)

Former India spinner Ravichandran Ashwin heaped praise on New Zealand pacer Jacob Duffy after his match-winning performance in the final Test against the West Indies, which helped the hosts seal a 2-0 series victory.On Monday at Mount Maunganui, Duffy claimed a five-wicket haul, finishing with figures of 5/42 in the West Indies’ second innings. The Caribbean side was bowled out for 138 while chasing a daunting target of 462, handing New Zealand a dominant 323-run win. Duffy’s performance on Day 5 proved decisive, dismantling the middle order by removing Alick Athanaze, Justin Greaves, and Roston Chase for just seven runs combined, and also dismissing top-scorer Brandon King (67) before taking the final wicket to seal the series.

Duffy’s haul was historic, allowing him to surpass Kiwi legend Richard Hadlee’s previous record of 80 wickets in a calendar year. With this effort, Duffy finishes 2025 with 81 international wickets, setting a new benchmark for New Zealand cricket. Across the series, he took 23 wickets, significantly contributing to New Zealand’s 2-0 victory and a strong start to their World Test Championship campaign.

Ashwin post

Ashwin highlighted Duffy’s remarkable form in 2025 across formats. On X, he wrote: “What a cricketer Jacob Duffy is turning out to be. 2025 has been his coming of age year. 23 wickets at 15.43, 40.3 strike rate and MOS in the tests against the Windies. He’s also the current #1 ranked T20I bowler, with a sensational 2025 in T20s with 57 wickets at 18.9, 7.89 economy, and an elite 53.1 per cent dot ball rate. At 31, he’s operating at peak efficiency. Absolute steal by RCB to pick him up at a base price of 2 Cr. Sensational coup.”Duffy’s performance not only demonstrated his skill with the red ball but also underlined why he is regarded as one of New Zealand’s most consistent and lethal bowlers in world cricket, thriving in both Test and T20 formats.

You don’t have permission to access “http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/potential-gain-for-exporters-economy-new-zealand-pm-christopher-luxon-hails-fta-with-india-9883683” on this server.

Reference #18.6fdd417.1766448462.1993f364

https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.6fdd417.1766448462.1993f364

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison has stepped in to personally guarantee more than $40bn in financing for Paramount Skydance’s hostile $78bn bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. The move follows open scepticism from WBD’s board over whether the offer was fully funded and capable of closing. By putting his own wealth on the line, Ellison aims to remove those doubts while reinforcing the high-stakes family dynamic behind the takeover led by his son, David Ellison.

Larry Ellison steps in to silence Warner Bros’ funding doubts

WBD’s board has repeatedly argued that Paramount’s offer relied too heavily on external investors and lacked certainty of financing. In takeover situations, boards are legally required to assess not just the headline price but the likelihood that a deal will actually close. WBD described the original funding structure as unreliable, giving it grounds to favour a rival proposal with clearer financial backing.Larry Ellison’s guarantee covers $40.4bn of the equity financing, effectively backstopping the transaction if other investors fall short. Paramount has also agreed to greater transparency around the Ellison family trust and confirmed the Oracle shareholdings underpinning the financing. Together, these steps are intended to neutralise WBD’s claims that the bid’s funding was uncertain.

Paramount versus Netflix

Paramount is offering $30 per share for the entire company, including cable assets such as CNN. That contrasts with an $83bn agreement between WBD and Netflix, which offers a lower per-share price of about $27.75 but excludes WBD’s cable networks, which would be spun off. WBD maintains that the Netflix deal delivers greater overall value once those assets are separated.

A hostile bid raises the pressure

Because Paramount’s approach is hostile, it bypasses WBD management and appeals directly to shareholders. To further strengthen its hand, Paramount has increased its break-up fee to $5.8bn, matching the penalty Netflix would pay if its deal collapsed. The changes are designed to make it harder for WBD’s board to dismiss the bid on financing grounds alone.While family guarantees are common in private business, they are rare at this scale. Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest individuals, is effectively vouching for his son’s strategy by placing his personal fortune behind the deal. The move signals just how determined Paramount is to force serious engagement from WBD’s board and shareholders.

What happens next

WBD’s board is expected to formally respond to the revised offer. Even if directors remain opposed, the strengthened financing could encourage shareholders to challenge the board’s recommendation. Markets reacted positively to the escalation, with WBD shares rising as investors weighed the increased likelihood of a bidding showdown.Whether the personal guarantee is enough to overturn board resistance remains uncertain. What is clear is that Paramount has now gone all in, turning the takeover battle into a test of funding certainty, shareholder confidence and the power of a father’s guarantee.

CHANDIGARH: Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that the authority vested in a criminal court to impose the condition of ‘deposit of passport’ ought not to be exercised in a “rote or automatic manner”, and such bail conditions must not unduly curtail personal liberty.HC was of the view that the condition for depositing one’s passport must be supported by specific material that points to a genuine flight risk. “It must be acknowledged that passport is not merely a travel document, but is often used as proof of nationality and identity. An order of deposit of passport as a pre-condition for bail is justifiable only on the basis of objective factors indicating a clear and imminent threat to the administration of justice, and must not be employed as a punitive measure against an undertrial accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” the bench of Justice Sumeet Goel held while deciding a criminal revision petition filed by Ram Lubhaya and others, who challenged a Nov 22, 2019, order of the additional sessions judge, Jalandhar.. HC was also of the view that it is not desirable to lay down any “straitjacket formulation” in this regard. To do so would be to crystallise into a rigid definition a judicial discretion, which even the legitimate has, for the best of all reasons, left undetermined. “Any attempt in this regard would be, to say the least, a quixotic endeavour. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact, may make a sea of difference between conclusions in two cases. Such exercise would thus, indubitably, be dependent upon the factual matrix of the particular case which the court is seisin of, since every case has its own peculiar factual conspectus. Such judicial discretion, but of course, ought to be exercised in accordance with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience,” the court held.While the Jalandhar sessions court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a criminal case, involving charges of causing hurt and wrongful confinement, it directed them to deposit their passports before the trial magistrate. In their plea before HC, the petitioners argued that they were summoned only for comparatively less severe offences and there was no material on record to show they were a flight risk. “The condition was arbitrary, excessive, and imposed without justification. Passports are essential identity and travel documents, and their seizure caused undue hardship,” the petitioners argued.After hearing the matter, HC set aside the condition requiring the petitioners to deposit their passports, holding it to be unsupported by facts.