MUMBAI: Observing that granting bail would lead to the feeling gaining ground in the citizenry that people can commit the most outrageous acts and yet would be dealt softly by court, a special court on Monday rejected the bail plea of 14 accused arrested for allegedly being involved in a massive “digital arrest” scam that defrauded a former pharmaceutical executive of over Rs 58 crore. Special Judge Ajay Vitthal Gujarathi said, “Cyber crimes are rising day by day. Innocent people are losing their hard-earned money due to cyber frauds. Everybody must be aware that he or she should not permit or insist that another person misuse his or her bank account for criminal activities.”The judge further pointed to the legal and moral responsibility of citizens regarding their personal financial accounts. The judge further said the “larger interest of the society” outweighed individual requests for release, concluding that the applications were devoid of merit.The informant reported receiving a series of calls in Aug 2025 from individuals posing as officials from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The fraudsters claimed the informant was involved in illegal activities linked to the chairman of a now defunct airline and placed him and his wife under a “digital arrest”. Under extreme duress and the threat of legal action, the couple was coerced into transferring the amount into various bank accounts across several weeks.Public prosecutor Ramesh Siroya opposed the bail pleas arguing they are involved in a serious economic crime. The judge delivered the orders on March 16 after considering the gravity of the offences and the filing of a chargesheet by the nodal cyber crime police. The accused — Jafar Sayyed, Abdul Karim Khully, Mukesh Singhvi, Sureshkumar Patel, Musran Kumbhar, Bipingiri Goswami, Sunny Lodha, Faheem Shaikh, Arjun Kadvasara, Chiragkumar Chaudhari, Onkar Hase, Sunny Jain, Jayeshbhai Dhapa, and Akshay Kumar Meena — are facing charges under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. The police investigation revealed that the accused allegedly facilitated the fraud by providing their bank accounts for illegal transactions in exchange for commission. The judge noted the organised nature of the crime, which involved the systematic misuse of financial infrastructure to divert large sums of money.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued an interim order directing Tamil Media outlet Nakkheeran Media to remove defamatory videos and articles published against Isha Foundation and Sadhguru, as per the release.Welcoming the order, Isha Foundation stated that it will continue to pursue legal action against those spreading false and malicious content.The case stems from a series of videos published by Nakkheeran that contained defamatory, vulgar, and obscene content, attempting to harm the reputation of Isha Foundation and Sadhguru. In response, the Foundation filed a defamation suit before the Delhi High Court in 2024, seeking the removal of such content and an injunction against the publication of similar material in the future.Isha filed an interim application in the matter seeking immediate removal of the content mentioned in the suit, as well as those published during the transfer petition before the Supreme Court, and sought restraint on further publication of such materials. The application was heard in December 2025, during which the Delhi High Court had reserved orders after hearing arguments from both sides.The order was issued today, with the Court directing the removal of the impugned videos and articles published by Nakkheeran concerning Isha Foundation and Sadhguru.In its statement, the Isha Foundation said, “We wholeheartedly welcome this interim order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. It is unfortunate that certain media outlets and individuals continue to propagate false and defamatory allegations without any evidence, as part of a deliberate effort to mislead the public.”“For over three decades, Isha Foundation has been deeply committed to large-scale social development and human well-being, work that has touched hundreds of millions of lives across the world. It is this very work that these coordinated attacks seek to disrupt. Isha will continue to pursue all appropriate legal action against those responsible. No amount of defamation or orchestrated misinformation will deter our efforts towards human well-being.“In March 2025, the Delhi High Court had directed YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to take down a defamatory video with false claims against Sadhguru and Isha Foundation. Following court orders, the misleading video was removed by the YouTuber.

Mumbai: In a significant relief to charitable trusts, Bombay high court has held that registration under Section 12AB of Income Tax (I-T) Act cannot be denied merely because the trust deed does not contain an explicit irrevocability clause. Without such registration, the trust cannot claim tax exemption.Several rejection orders passed by the I-T department now stand struck down. HC has directed the I-T department to reconsider these applications within six weeks. HC quashed the rejection orders not only in the petitioners’ cases but also in all similarly placed matters and directed the department to decide the applications afresh in accordance with the judgment. According to tax professionals, this would benefit a large number of charitable trusts. The order, related to a writ petition filed by Chamber of Tax Consultants, Bombay Chartered Accountants’ Society and several public trusts engaged in charitable medical and education spheres, after the commissioner of I-T (exemptions) rejected renewal applications on the ground that the trust deeds did not expressly state that the trusts were irrevocable. Under tax laws, an irrevocable trust is one in which the settlor has permanently transferred the assets to the trust and cannot reclaim them. The I-T department had insisted that trust deeds must explicitly state this. The petitioners argued that it is a settled principle of law that a trust (whether private or charitable) is irrevocable unless the trust deed expressly reserves a power of revocation. The issue arose after the I-T department began to reject registration applications filed in Form 10AB for not having an irrevocability clause in the trust deed. The department also treated the reply in the form as incorrect when trusts answered ‘Yes’ that such a clause existed. Trusts said the online form did not allow submission unless that option was chosen. The HC division bench held that neither Section 12AB nor the earlier registration regime requires the presence of an explicit irrevocability clause and that the I-T department had attempted to read a condition into the statute which does not exist. The court accepted the trusts’ contention that in law, a public charitable trust is presumed to be irrevocable unless the deed specifically provides otherwise, and that silence in the deed cannot be treated as revocability. It also noted that under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, trust assets cannot revert to the settlor and must continue to be used for charitable purposes, making such trusts inherently irrevocable. The bench further observed that the I-T Act already contains safeguards, including provisions denying tax exemption where the income benefits interested persons and has exit tax rules on dissolution of the trust. Thus, rejection of registration on technical grounds by the I-T department was unjustified. Significantly, the court also took note of the practical difficulty created by the e-filing software utility and directed the I-T authorities to modify the form so that trusts are not compelled to make incorrect declarations.

Mumbai: A city civil court directed a housing society in Chembur to hand over the keys of a redeveloped flat to a 63-year-old widow and her son, ending years of homelessness caused by an internal family feud. The court ruled the daughter-in-law and grandson of the original member were the rightful occupants, as they were the ones residing in the premises before the building was demolished for reconstruction in 2005. While the society had withheld possession citing conflicting claims from the deceased member’s married daughters, the court observed that the daughters had failed to prove their right to exclusive or joint possession in the absence of a proper partition suit. The court held the housing society and its secretary must perform their statutory obligation. “Defendant nos 1 and 2 being society and secretary are hereby directed to hand over the suit flat to the plaintiff nos 1 and 2 within one month from today,” Judge C S Datir said on Monday.The court also addressed the issue of unpaid transit rent of Rs 2.48 lakh. While the society claimed it could not distribute funds while the family was at odds, the court found that a specific amount of arrears was already lying with the society management. The judge ordered the immediate release of these funds to the widow. However, the court declined to grant a higher monthly compensation of Rs 25,000 or additional interest, noting the developer, who is responsible for such payments, was not made a party to the suit. The judge clarified the plaintiffs could pursue those monetary claims through a separate legal action against the builder. The legal battle originated from a flat in the Tilak Nagar Jai Hind Cooperative Housing Society, originally owned by Kesarinath Dhotre. Following his death and the subsequent passing of his sons, a dispute erupted between Priti Dhotre and her son, Prakash, on one side, and her sisters-in-law, Sadhana Chiplunkar and Chhaya Javeri, on the other. The sisters-in-law raised objections with the society, claiming a share in the estate and requesting the redeveloped flat not be handed over to Priti. Consequently, the society refused to part with the possession or pay the pending rent for alternate accommodation, citing the need for a clear court order to determine the rightful heir.The court noted Priti had resided in the matrimonial home since marriage and continued to stay there with her son until the building was handed over to the developer in 2005. The court found that the married daughters lived with their respective husbands and were not in possession of the flat at the time of redevelopment. Regarding the society’s refusal to act, the judgment noted, “It would be appropriated to direct the defendant nos 1 and 2 (housing society and secretary) to hand over the suit flat to the present plaintiff being a coparceners of late Kesarinath Dhotre.” In the context of Hindu Law in India, coparceners are a specific subset of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) who, by birth, acquire a legal right to the ancestral property of the family. The court noted that although defendants 3 and 4 are married daughters and legally recognized as coparceners of the Hindu Joint Family, their separate legal claim for partition was dismissed. This dismissal was based on the “partial partition theory”, as they failed to include all joint family properties in their suit. By not bringing the entire estate into the “common hotchpotch,” their claim to the specific disputed flat could not be sustained. Since the daughters’ claims were rejected and the flat is currently in the possession of the housing society, the court determined that the property should be handed over to the plaintiff.