Governor Kataria to attend Fauja Singh's cremation on July 20
Kataria remained an admirer of Fauja Singh, attending anti-drug campaigns with him in Punjab in December last year.
Fauja Singh, famously known as 'Turbaned Tornado' and 'Sikh Superman', suffered fatal head injuries on July 14 after a white Toyota Fortuner hit him while he was crossing a road in his village. He passed away later that day. Singh was the world's oldest marathon runner, and had become a global symbol of endurance and healthy aging.
The accused driver, Amritpal Singh, 26, a Canada-based NRI from the nearby Dasupur village, was arrested by police on July 15.
He is facing charges under Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 281 (rash driving) and 125-A (endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Amritpal had come from Canada eight days before the accident and recently purchased the Toyota Fortuner (PB 20-C-7100) from a Kapurthala resident.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
10 minutes ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court dismisses Byju's settlement plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed pleas filed by the BCCI and Riju Raveendran — brother of Byju Raveendran — seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against Byju's and to consider the settlement between the beleaguered edtech company and the BCCI. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadeven refused to interfere with the April 17 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had ruled that since the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of Committee of Creditors (CoC), it required the approval of the lender's body under the provisions of section 12 A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Earlier in February 2025, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had directed the petitioners to place their settlement offer before the new CoC, in which US-based Glas Trust, the trustee for lenders to which Byju's owes $1.2 billion, is a member. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Byju's was initiated in July last year by the NCLAT, admitting a Rs 158.90 crore claim from the BCCI as an operational creditor of edtech major. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was also appointed in this matter. Later, a settlement was reached between the parties, and Byju Raveendran approached the NCLAT. The appellate tribunal set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's on August 2, 2024, after approving a dues settlement with the BCCI, which had entered into a Team Sponsor Agreement with the cricket body in 2019. This was challenged by Glas Trust before the Supreme Court. A Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud halted the NCLAT order and directed the BCCI to deposit the amount in question in a separate escrow account till further orders. Meanwhile, Byju's Alpha, a special purpose financing vehicle established by Byju's in the US to receive proceeds of a $1.5 billion Term Loan B, has sued Byju Raveendran, co-founder and his wife Divya Gokulnath for "orchestrating theft of $533 million". Byju's Alpha said that following the $533 million judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against Riju Ravindran and Byju's ultimate corporate parent in India, the company has now filed a lawsuit against Byju Raveendran, his co-founder and wife Divya Gokulnath, and his consigliere (advisor), Anita Kishore. The lawsuit states that each of them co-orchestrated and executed a lawless scheme to conceal and steal $533 million of loan proceeds (the 'Alpha Funds'), according to a press release. They further stated that "it is clear that Byju, Divya, and Anita deliberately hid the assets of Byju's Alpha and repeatedly were deceptive about the location of the money in order to steal funds rightfully owed to the Lenders".
Mint
10 minutes ago
- Mint
Viceroy rebuts former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's legal opinion on its Vedanta report
Mumbai: US-based short-seller Viceroy Research has disputed former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud's legal opinion on its allegations of financial misconduct and misrepresentation against Vedanta Group. Viceroy argued that Chandrachud's legal opinion did not answer questions raised by it with regards to dividend payments and alleged financial mismanagement at the mining and minerals conglomerate. Justice Chandrachud's opinion 'fails to refute, investigate, or even engage with a single substantive financial allegation in our reports,' the short-seller said in a report on Monday, 21 July, its eighth note on Vedanta in 13 days. Vedanta has consistently denied Viceroy's allegations, terming the accusations baseless. Justice Chandrachud in his legal opinion to Vedanta, which was made public on Friday, said Viceroy's first report on billionaire Anil Agarwal's group, published on 9 July, lacked credibility, and the researchers behind the report had 'dubious credentials'. He said he relied on information shared by Vedanta to arrive at this opinion since Viceroy's website had no information in this regard. The former Chief Justice also highlighted Viceroy's interest in profiteering from a possible rout in Vedanta Resources' commercial papers as a result of the short-seller's reports. He also said he suspected the timing of the report, coming just as India-listed Vedanta Ltd is headed for a demerger. In April, Viceroy Research took a short position on the bonds of Vedanta Resources Ltd, the London-based unlisted holding company of the Vedanta Group, according to Fraser Perring, founder of Viceroy Research, who didn't disclose the quantum of his firm's exposure. Viceroy argued that Chandrachud's legal opinion relied entirely on 'management representations without questioning', the short-seller said, adding that the opinion failed to dispute any of its findings, conclusions, or concerns. 'When faced with serious allegations backed by detailed financial evidence, the company responded not with transparency, but with a character assassination attempt dressed in legal language,' the short-seller said in its latest report. Viceroy also claimed Vedanta had to pay for a legal opinion to defend its parent company against claims of stealing money or misusing the subsidiary's funds. Vedanta Resources holds a majority stake in India-listed Vedanta Ltd through several intermediaries. Hindustan Zinc Ltd is a subsidiary of Vedanta Ltd. Justice Chandrachud declined to comment on the matter. He explained that his role was professional in nature and the opinion given was protected by professional privilege. 'It is inappropriate to discuss anything pertaining to it in the public realm,' he said. Vedanta Group did not immediately reply to Mint's emailed queries on Viceroy's rebuttal. In his legal opinion, Justice Chandrachud said the transactions disclosed in financial statements and regulatory filings by Vedanta showed there was transparency and compliance with regulations. Such disclosures should be presumed legitimate unless there was clear evidence to prove otherwise, he opined. To this, Viceroy argued that mere disclosure did not confirm legality of the transactions. Justice Chandrachud also said Viceroy Research's report contained serious allegations tarnishing the Vedanta Group's image and reputation. 'The report contains serious imputations such as 'ponzi scheme' and 'parasite', which have caused harm to querist's (here Vedanta Ltd) business and reputation,' he said, adding that Vedanta was well placed to seek legal remedies under such circumstances. Former trial court judge Rishabh Gandhi said dismissing Chandrachud's report as just an opinion was reductive and misleading. 'A legal opinion—an opinion rendered by a legal expert based on applicable law and the facts presented—when issued by a highly regarded authority like the former Chief Justice of India, carries considerable legal and institutional credibility,' said Gandhi, who is also the founder of law firm Rishabh Gandhi & Associates. Gandhi explained that most legal opinions are based on a detailed review of documents, statutory interpretation, and precedent, primarily to confirm legal compliance, and enforceability of corporate actions such as dividend declarations, inter-company transactions, or board resolutions. Gandhi, however, clarified that while Chandrachud's legal opinion likely affirmed the legal permissibility of Vedanta's transactions and dividend policies under Indian corporate law, it did not address the broader concerns around financial prudence, related-party dynamics, or cash flow impact. 'If Vedanta wishes to credibly address Viceroy's allegations and rebut the perception that the legal opinion is merely a public relations exercise, it would be prudentto commission an independent financial or forensic audit,' Gandhi said. Viceroy has accused Vedanta Group of alleged financial misconduct and misrepresentation, making empty promises to shore up share prices, manipulating asset values, raising off-balance sheet loans, and corporate governance lapses, Mint reported on 9 July. At Vedanta's annual general meeting on 10 July, shareholders reposed their confidence in the company. 'Different investors have different concerns as they view things differently,' said Shriram Subramanian, managing director of proxy advisory firm InGovern. 'Viceroy is a short seller and has a thesis and a short position. Other investors and stakeholders may have a different thesis.' If investors were truly concerned about Viceroy's allegations, Vedanta's stock would have seen a sharp decline, which hasn't happened, he said. On 9 July, when Viceroy published its first report on the mining conglomerate, Vedanta Ltd shares declined as much as 8% intraday to ₹ 420.65 apiece before recouping some of the losses following a clarification from the company to settle at ₹ 441.30, down 3.29% on the NSE. The shares have since recovered. On Monday, Vedanta ended 2% higher at ₹ 454.90 per share.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
US woman offers 7-month-old daughter for sex to stranger, charged with trafficking
A mother of seven in Indiana was arrested after she allegedly told a man to molest her seven-month-old daughter in exchange for $400 (approximately Rs 33,000). Morgan Stapp, in a purported message to the man sought half of the amount in advance. The 32-year-old also allegedly asked the man if he was interested in her nude woman was charged with child sex trafficking for asking the man to molest her infant woman allegedly used the social media app Snapchat to try and facilitate a sexual assault on her daughter, according to a New York City-based news outlet, People. According to a probable cause affidavit obtained by People, the mother of seven sent the purported message to the man on November 1, 2024, suggesting he could assault the child."Half now rest after I'll send my address I do live alone, and her dad is not in the picture," the alleged message read, the news outlet flagged the message to authorities and 10 days later FBI agents met with Stapp at her home in Indianapolis, according to the affidavit, People 32-year-old woman reportedly told agents that she did not have access to her Snapchat account and denied sending the message in one phone had access to the account, according to the YOU BE INTERESTED IN MY NUDES, ASKED INDIANA WOMANDetective Kristen Hartman of the Metropolitan Police Department of Indianapolis found over 7,000 messages had been sent between October 29 and November 1, the affidavit read, including 81 that said: "Would you be interested in buying my nudes so I can get baby diapers?" according to the to the affidavit, the search also uncovered multiple images of Stapp that were taken after she claimed to FBI agents that she had lost access to her court docket shows that Stapp was booked into custody on July 8 and is being charged with child sex trafficking (attempt to commit), a level 2 felony, according to the Indiana law, a Level 2 felony conviction carries a mandatory prison sentence ranging from 10 to 30 in court last week, Stapp said that she is a stay-at-home mother and receives government aid, and help from her parents, The UK's Daily Mail added that she is unemployed but does some deliveries to earn extra bond was initially set at $200,000 surety but was later reduced to $100,000. She was also issued a no-contact order involving two of her woman was arrested on July 8 and is still in Marion County Jail, and a pre-trial hearing is scheduled for September 15.- Ends
