Mortal remains of Kerala trainee pilot killed in Canada to be flown to Kochi July 26
This was after the Consulate General of India in Toronto received relevant documents from the funeral home, where the victim's body is being kept, on Tuesday (July 22, 2025). The Consulate has since completed the formalities, said an email to Hibi Eden from Girish Juneja, who is in charge of social welfare in the Consulate, on Tuesday night. The documents were required for the issue of no-objection certificate to repatriate the body.
As per the communication, the mortal remains will be flown to Delhi from Toronto by Air India flight, AI188, at 2.20 p.m on July 25. From Delhi, the body will be flown to Kochi by Air India flight, AI 833, on July 26 and reach here by 8.10 a.m.
He was killed after his flight collided with another during a practice session in Manitoba province, Canada, on July 8. May Royes, 20, from Canada, was the other victim. Since then, the autopsy has been completed and the body was moved to a funeral home. Mr. Eden has been in contact with the Indian Consulate in Canada to speed up the formalities to bring back the mortal remains at the earliest.
The victim is survived by father K. Sukesh, manager at the Angamaly branch of the Central Bank of India, mother Deepa Chandran, an IT professional with UST Global in Infopark, and a younger sister. The family has been going through an agonising time waiting for his mortal remains. The funeral will be held in Thripunithura.
Sreehari left for Canada one-and-a-half-year ago and used to communicate with his family back home through video call without fail daily. His last call came the day before his death. Sreehari had last visited home in November 2024 and left in the first week of February 2025. He was on the verge of completing the mandatory flying hours to qualify as a commercial pilot, a dream which he had cherished all along.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Cuddalore medical student in Russia says he's being forced to fight in Ukraine; family seeks Centre's help
The last time Kishore Saravanan's family heard from him was when he sent them a frantic voice message about being forcibly sent to the warfront in Ukraine. The 22-year-old from Palayamkottai in Cuddalore district had gone to Russia to pursue MBBS. He was previously arrested by the Russian police in 2023 in an alleged drug case, according to his family. Kishore's father, J. Saravanan, said his son had sent a voice message on July 12, saying the Russian government had forcibly enlisted him to fight against Ukraine. 'I could not contact him on his phone, and his friends informed me that he was taken away by the Russian police. Though my son refused to join the Russian army, he was beaten and forced to sign a few documents. He was also given a Russian identity card and passport,' Mr. Saravanan told The Hindu. Kishore's family has urged the Union government to ensure his safe return. 'Kishore was reportedly given training for 10 days, and is now being taken to the conflict zone. Though we contacted the Indian Embassy in Russia seeking assistance, there has been no response,' Mr. Saravanan said. He said Kishore, a third-year MBBS student at Volgograd State Medical University, was arrested on May 4, 2023. 'Kishore worked part-time in an online parcel service company, and was arrested with his Indian roommate and two Russians by after drugs were found in a parcel meant for delivery. The police were trying to force him to confess to the crime, but he refused to do so. We can't contact him now, and there is no information on his whereabouts. We don't know whether he is still alive or not,' he said. When contacted, Cuddalore Collector Sibi Adhithya Senthil Kumar said the State government had escalated the issue, and the Ministry of External Affairs was in touch with the Indian Embassy. There had been no update so far, he said. VCK president and Chidambaram MP Thol. Thirumavalavan urged External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar to intervene and ensure Kishore's safe return. MDMK principal secretary and Tiruchi MP Durai Vaiko also sought the Centre's intervention. In a letter to Mr. Jaishankar, Mr. Vaiko urged him to take up the issue with the Russian government at the highest level.
Mint
19 minutes ago
- Mint
Supreme Court closes loophole, puts business partners on notice
A recent Supreme Court ruling has plugged a longstanding loophole that often allowed defaulting partners of a firm to escape liability and evade prosecution on procedural grounds. In a judgment delivered on a cheque-bounce case, the Supreme Court on 14 July ruled that such partners can be prosecuted directly even if the partnership firm itself is not formally named as an accused. Setting aside a previous Madras High Court order, the apex court emphasised the fundamental legal distinction between a partnership firm and a company, reinforcing that partners bear direct, joint, and several liability for a partnership firm's actions—unlike directors of a company. A partnership firm and its partners are the same in the eyes of the law, and thus, a notice to such partners is effectively a notice to the firm, the Supreme Court clarified. Legal experts said the Supreme Court's decision would have wide-ranging implications for commercial litigation, as it strengthens the position of creditors by ensuring that individuals responsible for issuing dud cheques from partnership accounts can be held accountable more swiftly. The core of the issue rested on the interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It deals with offences by companies and also outlines the liability of partners when a firm commits an offence under Section 138, which relates to dishonoured cheques. 'Earlier, many courts had taken the view that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the partners of a partnership firm was not maintainable unless the firm itself was also named as an accused and served with a statutory notice," said Abhinav Agnihotri, partner at Burgeon Law. 'This often allowed the accused partners to escape prosecution on technical grounds." The Supreme Court's ruling dismantled this defence. 'The court reasoned that, under Indian law, a partnership firm is not a separate legal entity from its partners, who are jointly and severally liable," Agnihotri added. 'This significantly streamlines the prosecution process in cheque-bounce cases by removing a technical hurdle, making it practically easier and quicker to proceed against the individuals responsible." The ruling's distinction between a traditional firm and a limited liability partnership will be useful in interpreting other statutes like the Companies Act, said Gaurav Pingle, a company secretary. 'The Supreme Court has upheld the basic principles of corporate law—i.e., separate legal entity, perpetual succession, (and) liability of partners in relation to the liability of partnership firm under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881," he said. 'Every partner is liable' The case involved a loan of ₹21 lakh advanced by Dhanasingh Prabhu to partners in Mouriya Coirs. One partner, on behalf of the firm, issued a cheque towards repaying the loan, but the cheque was dishonoured because the firm's account was frozen. While Prabhu issued a statutory notice to two partners of Mouriya Coirs, he did not name the firm as an accused. The Madras High Court quashed the complaint on the grounds that the firm was not arraigned as an accused. Reversing this, the Supreme Court delved into the distinct nature of a partnership firm. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, writing for the bench, observed that a partnership is fundamentally different from a company. 'Partnership is merely a convenient name to carry out business by partners. Thus, a firm is not an entity of persons in law but is merely an association of individuals and firm name is only a collective name of those individuals who constitute the firm," he wrote. The Supreme Court clarified that a firm is merely a 'compendious name" for its partners. In effect, proceeding against the partners is proceeding against the firm itself. 'Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner," the court noted, referencing Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act. 'A complaint can validly lie against the partners without naming the firm, since the liability is personal and not vicarious," said Suvigya Awasthy, partner at PSL Advocates and Solicitors. While the Supreme Court's judgment settles a key legal question, some experts pointed to potential challenges. Awasthy raised concerns about the risk of misuse against partners who may not be involved in the day-to-day operations of a partnership firm or a specific transaction that led to a dishonoured cheque. 'Since partners in a partnership firm are personally, jointly and severally liable for the acts of the firm, a complaint under the NI Act (Negotiable Instruments Act) can be filed against all the partners, regardless of their actual role or involvement in the specific transaction," he warned.
News18
42 minutes ago
- News18
Assam: Man sentenced to life imprisonment for killing elderly couple
Tezpur, Jul 29 (PTI) A person was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing an elderly couple, while his brother was acquitted in the same case by the Sonitpur Additional District and Sessions Court in Assam on Tuesday. Additional District and Sessions Judge Abdul Majid Mahmud Mahiuddin sentenced Gitumoni Bezboruah to life imprisonment for killing an Anglo-Indian couple here in 2020. His brother Ujjal Bezboruah was acquitted. The couple were murdered in their Potiachuburi residence here on November 20, 2020 and their bodies were recovered the next day. The assailants had looted cash and jewellery before fleeing, police had said. They were nabbed by the police on November 22, 2020. PTI CORR DG DG RBT view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
