New Delhi:

A court here on Monday sentenced activist Medha Patkar to five months simple imprisonment in a 23-year-old defamation case lodged against her by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena when he headed an NGO in Gujarat.

Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma also imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakh on Ms Patkar.

The court sentenced Ms Patkar after considering the evidence before it and the fact that the case went on for over two decades.

However, the court suspended the sentence for one month to enable Ms Patkar to file an appeal against the order.

Rejecting Ms Patkar’s prayer to release her on the condition of probation, the judge said, “Considering the facts…damages, age and ailment (of the accused), I am not inclined to give excessive punishment.” The offence entailed a maximum punishment of simple imprisonment of up to two years or fine or both.

On May 24, the court had observed that Ms Patkar’s statements calling Mr Saxena a “coward” and alleging his involvement in hawala transactions were not only defamatory per se but also crafted to incite negative perceptions about him.

Also, the accusation that the complainant was “mortgaging” the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service, it had said.

The arguments on sentencing were completed on May 30, following which the judgment on the quantum of sentence was reserved on June 7.

Ms Patkar and Mr Saxena have been locked in a legal tussle since 2000 after she filed a suit against him for publishing advertisements against her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA).

Mr Saxena, who then headed an Ahmedabad-based NGO named ‘Council for Civil Liberties’, had also filed two cases against Ms Patkar in 2001 for making derogatory remarks against him on a TV channel and issuing a defamatory press statement.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

 Delhi’s Patiala House Court, in a recent order, directed the jail authorities to provide an air cooler to Sukesh Chandrasekhar on medical grounds at his own expense.

Chandrasekhar, who is in judicial custody in connection with the Rs 200 crore extortion case, had sought relief on the medical grounds that he had developed skin problems due to a high temperature.

After considering the submissions and facts that centralised air conditioning system at Mandoli jail is under repair, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Chander jit Singh passed the direction.

The court said that it is a matter of record, being the report filed by Jail Authorities, that the applicant/accused has been advised to maintain optimum temperature for recovery and to avoid further exposure to skin disease.

“Therefore, it is directed that jail authorities shall take all measures to maintain the optimum room temperature in the cell where accused/applicant Sukesh Chandrashekhar is lodged and if need be, to achieve this optimum temperature, to provide private cooler to applicant/accused at his own expense,” ASJ Singh ordered on June 3.

The court observed, “The scorching heat Delhi is experiencing is unprecedented. At the time of framing the Delhi Prison Rules 2018, such a circumstance may not have been contemplated to emerge in the future.”

“Therefore, in the backdrop of this unprecedented situation, contention relating to health of inmate/accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar has to be interpreted under the umbrella of the general principle that careful attention is not only to be given for treatment to sick people but also to matters connected with the health prisoner,” the court said.

Advocate Anant Malik, counsel for the accused had submitted that the central cooling system at his cell was switched off on purpose.

It was reported that the entire centralized cooling system at Mandoli Jail complex is under repair/replacement and the matter has already been reported to the concerned department i.e. PWD and an estimate has also been given by PWD.

Counsel for the accused said that due to unprecedented heat, he is facing extreme situation and has developed certain skin problems in the form of rashes and his BP is also on the lower side.

However, it was also reported on behalf of Jail Authorities that there is no provision for a separate cooler.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A Delhi court today directed AAP leader Sanjay Singh not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses in the Excise “scam” case.

Special Judge Kaveri Baweja passed the directions before passing an order to release Singh from Tihar central jail following bail granted to him by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The judge also directed Sanjay Singh to submit passport, inform it about itinerary before leaving NCR, and to always keep his phone location on.

During the brief hearing, Sanjay Singh’s counsel informed the court that the politician’s wife would be surety for the accused in the matter.

“I (Singh) am the Member of Parliament. There is no flight risk,” the counsel told the court.

The judge directed the accused to submit a personal bond of Rs 2 lakh and one surety of same amount.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

In the dog-eared cookbook of India’s culinary delights, the section for Delhi is uniquely beloved. From crisp, gooey sweets like jalebi to the tangy flavor of lamb pulao, the city is built around enjoying, sharing, defending – and bickering over food.

Lately, those passions have fixed on a single question: Can you trademark the world’s most famous recipes?

For weeks, two popular establishments serving butter chicken, perhaps the most Delhi of Delhi’s dishes, have been in court seeking clarity on the matter. The plaintiff, an old-school restaurant chain called Moti Mahal Delux, has argued in 2,752 pages that its founder was the original inventor of butter chicken and therefore anybody who says otherwise is guilty of infringement. The defendant, a newer restaurant named Daryaganj, has countered by pointing out that it, too, has ancestral ties to another cook who claimed ownership of the dish.

This month, proceedings in the Delhi High Court will resume, with a major hearing scheduled for May. Managers at both restaurants have submitted newspaper clippings, archival photographs and food awards to back up their claims. Publicity from the case has been a financial and marketing boon for the chains, evoking nostalgia for the creamy chicken dish.

“It’s my family legacy that’s in question here,” said Monish Gujral, the owner of Moti Mahal Delux. Gujral said his grandfather created butter chicken before Partition happened in the 1940s. “It’s a very personal thing.”

This is no minor lawsuit in Delhi, where bylanes are packed with vendors selling every kind of spice, the local tea seller is a neighborhood fixture and food is inscribed with centuries of culture. Many of the city’s iconic dishes survived and evolved through generations of foreign rule and plunder. The tussle over butter chicken is about branding and business, but it also gestures at sacred preoccupations in India, where the origin of everything from the tunday kabab to rasgulla, a spongy dumpling, has come under similar scrutiny.

Delhi’s food culture took shape in the 1600s during the reign of Mughal emperor Shah Jahan, whose imperial kitchen housed cooks from Turkey, Iran and communities across South Asia. Spices served a practical purpose at the time. When a local hakim, or medicine man, found that many people were falling sick from polluted water, he suggested settling the stomach by adding lots of masala, ghee and yogurt to dishes, according to Salma Husain, an author and food historian.

After British rule, India’s palate tasted an explosion of new flavors. Migrants from Punjab brought tandoori cuisine to Delhi, using a large clay oven, sometimes buried in the ground, to cook poultry, vegetables and breads. Old Delhi, with its grand sandstone mosques, elegant havelis and thousands of hawker stands, became a laboratory for culinary experiments. Chefs added heavy creams to dry Mughlai meat dishes, concocting thick, flavorful curries. The variety drew visitors from across India.

“As a city, Delhi is where the quest for food is fulfilled,” Husain said.

Kundan Lal Gujral was among those to make Delhi home after the bloody period of Partition. A migrant from Peshawar, now part of Pakistan, Gujral and his business partners opened the original Moti Mahal in the middle of the capital. As the story goes, Gujral created butter chicken to make use of leftover poultry. With his lambswool fez and signature mustache, he served some of the world’s most famous people, including the Shah of Iran and Jacqueline Kennedy.

A question mark appeared over that narrative in 2019 with the opening of Daryaganj. The restaurant chain was cofounded by the grandson of Kundan Lal Jaggi, a chef and business partner in the original Moti Mahal. Daryaganj’s menus detail that chronology with an illustrated timeline, noting that butter chicken was invented after a large group of hungry customers showed up one evening. Jaggi, who was preparing to close the kitchen, improvised the recipe so his guests would have enough food.

“The right people should get the credit for what they started,” said Amit Bagga, the chief executive of Daryaganj. He called trademarking such a widely adapted meal like butter chicken – and daal makhani, another staple claimed by Moti Mahal – “preposterous.”

Today, the neighborhood where butter chicken was popularized is a tribute to the ways in which food nourishes the souls of Delhiites. In Chandni Chowk, a loud, labyrinthine shopping district, one street is devoted entirely to selling varieties of paratha, a flatbread. Every morning, scores of people from around Delhi line up at a single stall for a breakfast of chole bathure, spicy chickpeas served with puffy, deep-fried poori.

Rajeev Gupta, who conducts food tours in the area, said Delhi’s restaurants are so firmly entrenched in their zip codes that they go out of their way to make a point of it. Take Jalebi Wala, a sweets vendor in Chandni Chowk that purports to have opened in 1884. “OLD FAMOUS,” the signage declares. “WE HAVE NO OTHER BRANCH IN DELHI.”

Today, the neighborhood where butter chicken was popularized is a tribute to the ways in which food nourishes the souls of Delhiites.

The fight over butter chicken resonates because food is an identity here, Mr Gupta said, encompassing the reputation of a family, the memory of a painful migration, the start of a new life and the community that follows from sharing a hearty meal with those who matter.

“In Delhi, it’s not only about food,” he said. “It’s about going together. Just for having a famous paratha, people are driving 80 kilometers. It’s everything for us.”

In the dog-eared cookbook of India’s culinary delights, the section for Delhi is uniquely beloved. From crisp, gooey sweets like jalebi to the tangy flavor of lamb pulao, the city is built around enjoying, sharing, defending – and bickering over food.

Lately, those passions have fixed on a single question: Can you trademark the world’s most famous recipes?

For weeks, two popular establishments serving butter chicken, perhaps the most Delhi of Delhi’s dishes, have been in court seeking clarity on the matter. The plaintiff, an old-school restaurant chain called Moti Mahal Delux, has argued in 2,752 pages that its founder was the original inventor of butter chicken and therefore anybody who says otherwise is guilty of infringement. The defendant, a newer restaurant named Daryaganj, has countered by pointing out that it, too, has ancestral ties to another cook who claimed ownership of the dish.

This month, proceedings in the Delhi High Court will resume, with a major hearing scheduled for May. Managers at both restaurants have submitted newspaper clippings, archival photographs and food awards to back up their claims. Publicity from the case has been a financial and marketing boon for the chains, evoking nostalgia for the creamy chicken dish.

“It’s my family legacy that’s in question here,” said Monish Gujral, the owner of Moti Mahal Delux. Gujral said his grandfather created butter chicken before Partition happened in the 1940s. “It’s a very personal thing.”

This is no minor lawsuit in Delhi, where bylanes are packed with vendors selling every kind of spice, the local tea seller is a neighborhood fixture and food is inscribed with centuries of culture. Many of the city’s iconic dishes survived and evolved through generations of foreign rule and plunder. The tussle over butter chicken is about branding and business, but it also gestures at sacred preoccupations in India, where the origin of everything from the tunday kabab to rasgulla, a spongy dumpling, has come under similar scrutiny.

Delhi’s food culture took shape in the 1600s during the reign of Mughal emperor Shah Jahan, whose imperial kitchen housed cooks from Turkey, Iran and communities across South Asia. Spices served a practical purpose at the time. When a local hakim, or medicine man, found that many people were falling sick from polluted water, he suggested settling the stomach by adding lots of masala, ghee and yogurt to dishes, according to Salma Husain, an author and food historian.

After British rule, India’s palate tasted an explosion of new flavors. Migrants from Punjab brought tandoori cuisine to Delhi, using a large clay oven, sometimes buried in the ground, to cook poultry, vegetables and breads. Old Delhi, with its grand sandstone mosques, elegant havelis and thousands of hawker stands, became a laboratory for culinary experiments. Chefs added heavy creams to dry Mughlai meat dishes, concocting thick, flavorful curries. The variety drew visitors from across India.

“As a city, Delhi is where the quest for food is fulfilled,” Husain said.

Kundan Lal Gujral was among those to make Delhi home after the bloody period of Partition. A migrant from Peshawar, now part of Pakistan, Gujral and his business partners opened the original Moti Mahal in the middle of the capital. As the story goes, Gujral created butter chicken to make use of leftover poultry. With his lambswool fez and signature mustache, he served some of the world’s most famous people, including the Shah of Iran and Jacqueline Kennedy.

A question mark appeared over that narrative in 2019 with the opening of Daryaganj. The restaurant chain was cofounded by the grandson of Kundan Lal Jaggi, a chef and business partner in the original Moti Mahal. Daryaganj’s menus detail that chronology with an illustrated timeline, noting that butter chicken was invented after a large group of hungry customers showed up one evening. Jaggi, who was preparing to close the kitchen, improvised the recipe so his guests would have enough food.

“The right people should get the credit for what they started,” said Amit Bagga, the chief executive of Daryaganj. He called trademarking such a widely adapted meal like butter chicken – and daal makhani, another staple claimed by Moti Mahal – “preposterous.”

Today, the neighborhood where butter chicken was popularized is a tribute to the ways in which food nourishes the souls of Delhiites. In Chandni Chowk, a loud, labyrinthine shopping district, one street is devoted entirely to selling varieties of paratha, a flatbread. Every morning, scores of people from around Delhi line up at a single stall for a breakfast of chole bathure, spicy chickpeas served with puffy, deep-fried poori.

Rajeev Gupta, who conducts food tours in the area, said Delhi’s restaurants are so firmly entrenched in their zip codes that they go out of their way to make a point of it. Take Jalebi Wala, a sweets vendor in Chandni Chowk that purports to have opened in 1884. “OLD FAMOUS,” the signage declares. “WE HAVE NO OTHER BRANCH IN DELHI.”

Today, the neighborhood where butter chicken was popularized is a tribute to the ways in which food nourishes the souls of Delhiites.

The fight over butter chicken resonates because food is an identity here, Mr Gupta said, encompassing the reputation of a family, the memory of a painful migration, the start of a new life and the community that follows from sharing a hearty meal with those who matter.

“In Delhi, it’s not only about food,” he said. “It’s about going together. Just for having a famous paratha, people are driving 80 kilometers. It’s everything for us.”

New Delhi:

A sessions court here has rejected an appeal by the Delhi Police challenging an order for the release of seized electronic devices of five editors of news portal The Wire in connection with an FIR, saying serious injury would be caused to the “foundations of democracy” if the press, its fourth pillar, is not allowed to function independently.

The city police had filed a revision petition assailing the September 23 order of the magisterial court asking them to release seized electronic devices to Siddharth Varadarajan, Siddharth Bhatia, Jahnavi Sen, MK Venu and Mithun Kidambi.

In October last year, police had lodged an FIR against the portal and its editors on a complaint by BJP leader Amit Malviya accusing the media outlet of “cheating and forgery” and “tarnishing” his reputation.

Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Singh Rajawat dismissed the revision petition filed by the city police, saying the impugned order of the magisterial court did not decide any right and only granted “the interim custody” of the devices till the conclusion of the investigation or disposal of the case.

“The press is considered the fourth pillar of our great democracy and if it is not allowed to function and operate independently, it would cause serious injury to the foundations of our democracy,” the sessions court said.

Dismissing the petition as “not maintainable,” the sessions court said the order passed by the magistrate was “purely interlocutory in nature” and no revision would lie against it.

“The investigating agency by continuous seizure of electronic devices of the respondents (portal and its editors), is not only causing undue hardship to them, but impinges upon their fundamental right of freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) as well as freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as admittedly the respondents are working for news portal — The Wire — which is engaged in disseminating news and information and the electronic devices were being used for their work,” it said.

It did not find any fault with the order of the magisterial court and said it not only safeguarded the interest of the journalists but also ensured that they keep the devices safe.

Rejecting the arguments of the Delhi Police, the judge said the release order was made after noting that the mirror imaging of the devices had been done and their custody was no longer required.

The city police’s crime branch had registered an FIR against Mr Varadarajan, Mr Bhatia, Ms Sen, Mr Venu and Mr Kidambi under Indian Penal Code sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery with the purpose of cheating), 469 (forgery for harming reputation), 471 (using forged document), 500 (defamation), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) along with the provisions of the Information Technology Act.

The stories were retracted by the news portal.

Mr Malviya had said The Wire’s reports alleged that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, regularly colluded with members of the BJP in removing content deemed unfavourable to the party.

Even after Meta issued a categorical denial and said the documents shown by the portal were “fabricated” and that the ‘Xcheck’ status, the privilege reportedly bestowed on him, had been mischaracterised, The Wire instead of pausing its coverage and doing an internal audit went on to publish yet another “malicious” report, he had said. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A Delhi court on Wednesday summoned BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain on a woman’s complaint alleging rape and criminal intimidation. The court took cognisance of the alleged offence and directed the former Union minister to appear before it on October 20.

“This court, after going through the cancellation report, protest petition filed by the complainant, the reply to the protest petition filed by the IO and other material on record is of the view that the complainant has given consistent statements to the police, to the court in her application and before the Ld. Magistrate in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC,” the judge said.

The police had filed a report before the court seeking cancellation of the FIR.

The judge dismissed the police report, saying, “The issues raised by the IO (investigating officer) while filing the cancellation report…are matters which can be decided during trial.”

 “Moreover this court is of the view that the version of the complainant and her trustworthiness can be tested only during trial when she is cross-examined by the accused and so this court on the basis of material placed on record along with the cancellation report especially the statement of the complainant… wherein she has supported her allegation of rape and threats by accused Syed Shahnawaz Hussain… this court takes cognisance of the offences,” the judge said.

The judge took cognisance of the alleged offences, which are punishable under various provisions of the IPC including sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation).

“Accordingly, accused Syed Shahnawaz Hussain be summoned through SHO PS Concerned for the next date of hearing,” the judge said.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

No law gives the right to a husband to beat and torture his wife, the Delhi High Court has held while granting divorce to a woman on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the man.

The high court said, in this case, it has been proved that the man failed to resume companionship with his wife and not only did there exist physical separation but it was also coupled with “animus” of not bringing her back to the matrimonial home.

Taking into account the medical documents of the woman, the high court said in the absence of any rebuttal by the man, it has to be held that the woman’s testimony of being subjected to physical assault stands corroborated by the medical documents.

“Merely because the parties got married and the respondent (man) was her husband, no law gave him the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture. Such conduct of the respondent necessarily qualifies as physical cruelty entitling the appellant (woman) to divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955,” a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said.

The court noted that the man, who was present before it at the time of the passing of the verdict, had no objection to the grant of divorce.

“We accordingly find merit in the appeal and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is hereby dissolved,” the bench said.

The high court was hearing an appeal filed by the woman challenging the decision of a family court which had dismissed her petition seeking divorce from the man on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The high court noted that the woman had deposed that she was left at her parental home on May 11, 2013, in an injured condition and thereafter despite her efforts, the man refused to take her back to the matrimonial home.

It said the man has also not countered the woman’s argument that she was not brought back to the matrimonial home, for which there existed no reason.

“It is proved that the respondent had failed to resume the companionship with the appellant and thus not only there exist physical separation but it was also coupled with ‘animus’ of not bringing back the appellant to the matrimonial home.

“The respondent had no intention of resuming the matrimonial relationship which also got reflected when he chose not to contest the petition. The petition for divorce has been filed after more than two years of separation and therefore the appellant is also entitled to divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13 1 (ib) of the HMA,” the high court said.

According to the woman’s plea, she and the man got married in February 2013 and they have been living with the family of the man’s maternal aunt since his parents died a long time back.

The woman claimed that soon after the marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture and various atrocities were meted out to her which she continued to tolerate in the fond hope that with the passage of time, things would get settled.

However, the atrocities of the man and his family members kept increasing as they wanted to get rid of her so that the man could re-marry into an affluent family, the plea said.

The woman claimed that there was repeated demand for dowry and she was deserted by the man who refused to take her back to the matrimonial home.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)