Godfrey Phillips: Bina Modi, Lalit Bhasin not charged in Samir Modi assault case
Godfrey Phillips India
's chairperson
Bina Modi
and former director
Lalit Bhasin
have not been charged in a case accusing them of conspiracy to assault the company's former director
Samir Modi
at a board meeting last year, according to people familiar with the matter.
They remain suspects in the case but were not charged due to lack of evidence,
Delhi Police
officials said on condition of anonymity.
The police have only charge-sheeted Bina Modi's personal security officer (PSO), Surendra Prasad, who was a co-accused in the matter, they said.
5
5
Next
Stay
Playback speed
1x Normal
Back
0.25x
0.5x
1x Normal
1.5x
2x
5
5
/
Skip
Ads by
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
She lives in the Loneliest house in the World - Don't judge until you see the inside!
Tips and Tricks
Undo
Samir Modi, a former Godfrey Phillips director and current promoter, is Bina Modi's son. His lawyer,
Simran Singh
, claimed Bina Modi had not been exonerated. However, the police officials cited earlier said the investigation had been completed.
'The police has not exonerated Bina Modi and therefore places her in column 12 of the charge sheet,' said Singh. 'There is sufficient evidence on record against Mrs Bina Modi for intentionally aiding and abetting her PSO in wrongful restrain and also common intention with him to not only restrain Samir Modi from entering the meeting room but also voluntarily causing assault and grievous hurt to Samir Modi in that process. We will file a protest petition and will request the court to take cognizance against Mrs Bina Modi also, for offences under sections 341/325/34 of the IPC.'
Live Events
The final charge sheet was prepared by Delhi Police after an investigation that lasted for almost a year. A first information report was filed at Delhi's Sarita Vihar police station last year by Samir Modi alleging he was assaulted by Bina Modi's personal security officer at Godfrey Phillips India's board meeting on May 31, 2024.
Samir Modi, who was formerly an executive director with Godfrey Phillips India, was sacked from the company's board on August 7. He has been locked in a family dispute where he has accused his mother of not making good on the distribution of the family inheritance the terms of which were laid out in a trust deed by the family patriarch, the late
KK Modi
.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Can consecutive life terms be given to person convicted of murder twice? SC to examine
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine whether consecutive life sentences can be handed out to a person convicted twice for the offence of murder. The issue cropped up when the bench was hearing a plea arising out of a 2015 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a 2010 double murder case . A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan learnt that a five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court in July 2016 held that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with life term, they cannot be directed to run consecutively. "Issue notice limited to the question of ascertaining as to whether the imposition of consecutive life sentence for being convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 (twice) is lawful in view of the observations made in ... (constitution bench verdict), returnable in eight weeks," the bench said. The high court, while upholding the conviction of a man in the case, had turned down the reference for confirmation of death sentence awarded to him by a trial court. Live Events The high court awarded life imprisonment to the convict twice for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the erstwhile IPC. Life term, it said, was a sentence for imprisonment till the last breath of a person's natural life and as such, imposition of "two life sentences is otherwise superfluous". "...however, since by executive action, in the form of remissions and pardons, such life imprisonment is often reduced to imprisonment for a lessor period, therefore, in such a situation, sentence of a second life imprisonment can be directed to run from the date when a person completes one sentence of such imprisonment, if remissions are granted to him," the high court added. It directed that if any remission was granted to the convict in any one of his life sentences, the life term imposed upon him for the other offence of murder would start running from the date the first period of imprisonment was completed. During the hearing in the apex court on Thursday, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the July 2016 verdict of the Constitution bench. The lawyer referred to the apex court holding that when it comes to life imprisonment, it couldn't be imposed consecutively. "That is exactly what has been done in this case," she argued. The lawyer referred to the Constitution bench verdict which said, "We hold that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the life sentences so awarded cannot be directed to run consecutively." She said the high court's direction was now contrary to the law laid down by the apex court. The lawyer said the convict was not able to apply for remission due to the high court's direction and urged the top court to at least consider setting aside that part of the verdict.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Can consecutive life terms be given to person convicted of murder twice? SC to examine
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine whether consecutive life sentences can be handed out to a person convicted twice for the offence of murder. The issue cropped up when the bench was hearing a plea arising out of a 2015 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a 2010 double murder case. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan learnt that a five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court in July 2016 held that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with life term, they cannot be directed to run consecutively. "Issue notice limited to the question of ascertaining as to whether the imposition of consecutive life sentence for being convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 is lawful in view of the observations made in ... , returnable in eight weeks," the bench said. The high court, while upholding the conviction of a man in the case, had turned down the reference for confirmation of death sentence awarded to him by a trial court. The high court awarded life imprisonment to the convict twice for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the erstwhile IPC. Life term, it said, was a sentence for imprisonment till the last breath of a person's natural life and as such, imposition of "two life sentences is otherwise superfluous". "...however, since by executive action, in the form of remissions and pardons, such life imprisonment is often reduced to imprisonment for a lessor period, therefore, in such a situation, sentence of a second life imprisonment can be directed to run from the date when a person completes one sentence of such imprisonment, if remissions are granted to him," the high court added. It directed that if any remission was granted to the convict in any one of his life sentences, the life term imposed upon him for the other offence of murder would start running from the date the first period of imprisonment was completed. During the hearing in the apex court on Thursday, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the July 2016 verdict of the Constitution bench. The lawyer referred to the apex court holding that when it comes to life imprisonment, it couldn't be imposed consecutively. "That is exactly what has been done in this case," she argued. The lawyer referred to the Constitution bench verdict which said, "We hold that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the life sentences so awarded cannot be directed to run consecutively." She said the high court's direction was now contrary to the law laid down by the apex court. The lawyer said the convict was not able to apply for remission due to the high court's direction and urged the top court to at least consider setting aside that part of the verdict.
News18
6 hours ago
- News18
Mocking Husband's Disability Is Mental Cruelty: Orissa High Court Upholds Divorce Without Alimony
Last Updated: The court confirmed that such conduct destroyed the sanctity of the marital relationship, making cohabitation untenable The Orissa High Court has upheld a divorce granted to a physically disabled man after it was proven that his wife had mocked his disability, terming such conduct as mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench of Justices BP Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, while dismissing the wife's appeal, observed that her repeated insults toward the husband's physical infirmity, including calling him names like 'Kempa" (cripple) and 'Nikhatu" (useless), clearly amounted to mental cruelty, warranting dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on June 1, 2016. According to the husband's testimony, the wife left the matrimonial home merely three months later on September 15, 2016, returned briefly in January 2017, but ultimately left for good on March 25, 2018. She later filed a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and other provisions, accusing the husband and his family of cruelty. The husband filed a divorce petition on April 3, 2019, on the ground of mental cruelty. He examined two witnesses to support his claims. Despite cross-examining them, the wife neither examined any witnesses nor produced any evidence to counter the allegations. The family court in Puri, in its judgment dated July 10, 2023, ruled in favour of the husband, granting a decree of divorce without awarding permanent alimony. The wife challenged this order before the high court. Dismissing the appeal, the high court said that the evidence on record clearly showed the wife's demeaning behaviour toward her husband's disability. 'Such behaviour by the wife…definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty," the court observed. It emphasised that in a marital relationship, mutual respect is essential, and ridiculing a spouse's physical shortcomings can gravely impact their dignity and emotional well-being. The court cited key precedents, including V Bhagat v. D Bhagat and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, to explain the evolving contours of 'mental cruelty" in matrimonial law. It reiterated that conduct which causes deep mental pain, making it unreasonable to expect the spouses to live together, can be sufficient ground for divorce. 'A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to relationship of husband and wife, it is expected that the wife should support the husband despite his physical infirmity, if any," court said. On the issue of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan, the court noted that no material was presented on the income or assets of either party, and thus left the matter open for the wife to pursue separately under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the family court. First Published: June 12, 2025, 15:16 IST
