Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Subrata Roy's lawyer asks SC to indicate its order

In an unprecedented step, Sahara group chief Subrata Roy's counsel on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court bench to indicate the contours of its order on his proposal to deposit Rs 10,000 crore, which is the precondition for his release from Tihar Jail.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan's plea left the bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar, which had reserved the order on Roy's proposal on April 21, speechless.

"If it is aye, then all is well. If it is no, then we can utilize the time to work for placing a better proposal," Dhavan continued. He added, "The temperatures have soared and the gentleman (Roy) is not keeping all that well. An early order would help."

The bench, which had assembled to hear contempt of court proceedings against the man who had thrown ink at Roy on March 4, got up and walked out of the court room without uttering a word. Roy has been lodged in Tihar since March 4.

On March 26, the bench had ordered release of Roy and Sahara directors Ravi Shanker Dubey and Ashok Roy Chaudhary from jail provided they deposited Rs 10,000 crore as part payment of the Rs 20,000 crore which is due from Sahara Housing and Sahara Real Estate as per the court's August 31, 2012 judgment. The Saharas have so far deposited Rs 5,120 crore.

After rejection of their numerous proposals, the two Sahara companies, Roy and the directors had proposed on April 21 that they would deposit Rs 3,000 crore within three days of their release and Rs 2,000 crore by May 30 to take care of the cash component of the condition for their release.

They said a bank guarantee for Rs 5,000 crore would be furnished in favour of market regulator Sebi on or before June 20 but wanted the condition — it must be from a nationalized bank — to be relaxed so as to enable them to get it from a scheduled commercial bank.

On Wednesday, advocate Manoj Sharma was produced before Justices Radhakrishnan and Khehar to face contempt of court charges for throwing ink at Roy on March 4 while the Sahara chief was being produced in court for disobeying the SC's summons for personal appearance on February 26.

The bench asked Sharma to file his affidavit to the court's notice why criminal contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for attempting to obstruct the justice delivery system by impeding appearance of a person in court in response to summons.

The court was concerned by the increase in the number of such incidents in courts all over the country, where accused persons either get assaulted or humiliated by vigilante groups or individuals attempting to grab the spotlight, given the large media presence to cover the case.

"These type of incidents are happening all over the country. Whenever an accused goes to court, he is made to face such incidents. All this is because of the large media presence there. We are concerned. The accused are under court protection," the bench said.

Dhavan suggested that the apex court could identify a separate entry for those to be produced before the court so that the accused is not made a public spectacle by the media and protected from being further humiliated by such incidents. AKANKSHA SHANU PGDM 1st year 2nd sem. 2013-15.

Uttarakhand report: Time to rethink our development models - See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/it-s-time-to-seriously-rethink-our-development-models/article1-1214151.aspx#sthash.LdJqy0dn.dpuf

Supertech moves SC to save Noida twin towers

Purusharth Aradhak,TNN | May 1, 2014, 04.19 AM IST

NOIDA: Real estate major Supertech on Wednesday filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the Allahabad high court's order to demolish two residential towers in Noida's Sector 93A for flouting building norms.

Homebuyers in the two 40-storey towers — Apex and Ceyane — have already moved the Supreme Court.

"We have constructed Apex and Ceyane towers in conformity with the Noida Authority's bylaws and the National Building Code 2005," said Supertech chief R K Arora. "Our representatives could not present the facts properly in the Allahabad high court. We have all necessary approvals in place and our team will represent the facts properly and we are confident that we and our buyers will get relief from the apex court."

Arora added, "Apart from approvals, we started construction according to the layout plan sanctioned by the Noida Authority. There is no illegality in the project; this is the reason buyers are still associated with us. Protection of the homebuyers' interest is the top priority of the company."

The company has already offered homebuyers in the two towers three options — a cash refund at 14% compounded interest as ordered by the high court, a shift to any other ongoing Supertech project proportionate with the investment in Apex and Ceyane, or continue in the same project and wait for the legal outcome.

"So far, only 1-2% buyers have wished for a cash refund at 14% compounded interest. Rest of the buyers want their flats in the twin towers. Earlier we had given buyers an April 30 deadline to decide on which option they want but now we have revised the date to May 31," Arora said.

On April 11, a division bench of justices V K Shukla and Suneet Kumar had ordered the demolition of the towers "within a period of four months" and also directed the prosecution of the builder and officials of Noida Authority for allowing the construction. The Noida Authority is also considering filing a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.

nagesh dubey

Google to stop mining student emails for ad ideas

Google to stop mining student emails for ad ideas

Google will stop looking for advertising ideas in the emails of students using a suite of the Internet company's free products tailored for schools.

The changes announced Wednesday affect Google's "Apps for Education" service that has been offered to schools for the past seven years.

Among other things, Google Inc. says it will no longer pore through Gmails sent through Apps for Education for clues about students' interests. The scanning helps the Mountain View, California, company figure out what types of ads might appeal to the students.
Although Google didn't show ads in Apps for Education unless school administrators choose to allow the commercial pitches, the company could still use the personal data collected in Gmail scanning to peddle products when students might be using other online services.
More than 30 million students, teachers and administrators use the Apps for Education suite.
"Earning and keeping their trust drives our business forward," Bram Bout, Google's director of education wrote in a blog post. "We know that trust is earned through protecting their privacy and providing the best security measures.

"
Google's habitual scanning of Gmail had become the focal point of a federal lawsuit alleging the practice violated users' privacy. The case included claims by students at the University of Hawaii and the University of the Pacific in Stockton, California that they were required to use Apps for Education as part of their enrollment in schools.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dealt the lawsuit a setback last month when she denied a request to certify it as a class action representing tens of millions of Gmail users.
Google's scanning of Gmail in schools also had been facing questions about whether it violated the 40-year-old Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which is meant to protect student privacy.

Bout's blog post didn't cite the legal issues facing Gmail-scanning in his blog post outlining the revisions to Google's Apps for Education policies.
"Google executives are always pushing the limits and only back off when their hands are caught in the cookie jar," said John Simpson, privacy project director for Consumer Watchdog, a group that has railed against Google's data-collection practices for years.
Google is also removing the option that allowed school administrators to show Gmail ads when students were using Apps for Education.
VIKASH CHANDRA MISHRA
PGDM 1ST YESR
SOURCE : HINDUSTAN TIME