General waste generated from kitchen, packaging material for groceries, food material, waste papers, waste plastics, floor cleaning dust, etc, must be handed over to the municipal solid waste collector identified by Urban Local Bodies or as per the prevailing local method of disposing general solid waste. Likewise, the bio-medical waste contaminated with blood/body fluids of Covid-19 patients must be collected in a yellow bag and handed over to authorised waste collectors at door steps, engaged by local bodies or the waste collector engaged by CBWTF operator at the doorstep or can be deposited at designated deposition Centers established by ULBs.
Did you recently come across any used Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) like mask, glove lying on the road? Well, if you did not, you are lucky to be residing in an area where people are aware of the proper disposal mechanism of the protective equipment. How do you dispose of your one-time use mask? Do you throw it in the common bin of your neighborhood? If yes, then are you aware of the threat it poses to the environment and the health of the people? Do you know how largely does the proper disposal of such waste contributes in limiting the spread of the ghastly virus?
With India topping the list of the most recorded COVID-19 cases in a day (near about 90,000), the concerns regarding the management of the bio-medical waste, produced by the hospitals, nursing homes, health centers and households, used for the purpose of self-quarantine, are exponentially increasing. Though the threat of contracting the virus is spine-chilling, however what appears to be more alarming is the aftereffect of the pandemic i.e. the stacking up of the waste, generated during the diagnosis, treatment and immunization of people.
Through this column, the authors aim at apprising its readers with the measures taken by the government and the judiciary to contain the spread of the ghastly virus via mediums such as used PPEs, testing equipments, solid and liquid waste.
UNPACKING THE MEASURES
It is not an unknown fact that improper disposal of the waste certainly poses risk to the lives of sanitation workers who quite often work without being trained for handling such hazardous materials. India, since time immemorial has been struggling with the issue of poor waste management and with the coming in of the novel corona virus in the country there was a pre-emption that this issue would be taking a turn for the worst. The daily numbers certainly do suggest the same.
Government of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH&FW) anticipated the excessive amount of waste that would be generated as a consequence of all the measures which would be adopted to prevent, diagnose and treat the virus. In its bit to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus, the MoH&FW, released the guidelines on use of masks by public. It prescribed the manner of disposal of masks and stated that used masks must be disinfected using ordinary bleach solution (5%) or sodium hypochlorite solution (1%) and then disposed of either by burning or deep burial. This guideline was subsequently complemented with pictorial representations in order to create awareness amongst the general public. The municipal bodies would do well to sensitize the public at large and not just make repeated and stale announcements of social distancing.
Notably, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) also took the initiative of enacting Guidelines for handling, treatment and disposal of Covid-19 waste at Healthcare Facilities, Quarantine Camps/ Quarantinehomes/Home-care, Sample Collection Centres, Laboratories, SPCBs, Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and common biomedical waste treatment and disposal facilities (CBWTFs). These guidelines are to be read with the existing Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016.
It may be advisable to impose stricter implication of these guidelines under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (the 2005 Act). As we understand, the only threat thus far of the 2005 Act has only been witnessed by migrant labors and remotely by private companies for keeping their employees on their pay role. Its high time we impose stricter guidelines within the ambit of 2005 Act upon everyone that may have a defining role in management of COVID-19 Biomedical waste. If not, we can segregate the petty yet damaging offences to steep fine if not curtailment of personal liberty under the 2005 Act.
Undernoted provides a short gist of the duties imposed upon the above-mentioned stakeholders for the systematic disposal of COVID-19 biomedical waste:
Are you taking care of a COVID-19 patient at Home?
Recently, when one of the authors was at the supermarket for grocery shopping, he happened to meet a friend who shared the unfortunate news of his wife being tested positive for COVID-19. During the conversation, the author was brimmed with a rather very shocking and unsettling news; the husband of the infected wife, was disposing his wife’s bio-medical waste with the general household waste, without any segregation.
Do you know the repercussions of the above act? Are you aware of the risk it poses to the sanitation worker who is responsible for collecting the general waste? Do you know that any person who comes in contact with this particular sanitation worker is also at a risk of contracting the virus? Then, what is the correct way of disposal? Look into this section to understand your duties as a care-taker for disposal of Bio-medical waste.
It is to be noted that a COVID-19 patient’s waste such as discarded masks and gloves can be disposed of as a general waste only when the same has been stored in a paper bag for a minimum of 72 hours.
General waste generated from kitchen, packaging material for groceries, food material, waste papers, waste plastics, floor cleaning dust, etc. must be handedover to the municipal solid waste collector identified by Urban Local Bodies or as per the prevailing local method of disposing general solid waste, whereas the bio-medical waste contaminated with blood / body fluids of COVID-19 patients must be collected in a yellow bag and handed over to authorized waste collectors at door steps, engaged by local bodies or the waste collector engaged by CBWTF operator at the doorstep or can be deposited at designated deposition Centers established by ULBs.
Pertinently, it must be ensured that general waste and COVID-19 bio-medical waste must not be mixed – SHOULD BE SEGREGATED CAREFULLY.
Are you an operator of an Isolation Ward? How do you dispose of the COVID-19 bio-medical waste?
If you are an operator, the you must look at this space to get well versed with the compliances required to be fulfilled by you to ensure safe handling of the biomedical waste. The key duty of an operator is to maintain separate color coded and labelled [COVID-19 Waste] bins (with foot operated lids)/bags/containers in the wards. Red colored bags must be used to collect goggles, face-shield, splash proof apron, Plastic Coverall, Hazmet suit, nitrile gloves and yellow for the collection of used mask (including Triple layer mask, N95 mask etc.), head cover/ cap, shoe-cover, disposable linen Gown, non-plastic or semi-plastic coverall. Additionally, the use of double layered bio-medical waste bag must be encouraged to ensure that the liquid contents of the waste do not spill out.
Most importantly, utmost care must be undertaken to ensure that the equipments such as containers/bins/ trolleys are disinfected with 1% sodium hypochlorite solution daily. Proper training must be provided to waste handlers in terms of the preventive measures via videos and demonstration in local language. Training shall be provided by designated nodal officer trained by Health Departments / professional agencies in association with SPCB of the States/ UTs.
It must be ensured that separate records of waste generated from COVID-19 isolation wards are maintained and registered on the CPCB mobile application namely ‘COVID19BWM’.
Do you collect samples of suspected patients or operate Collection Centers/Laboratories? If yes, then watch out the undernoted directions issued by the CPCB.
As soon as a lab/collection center is opened, it is incumbent upon the operator to inform about the same to the SPCB. Disposal mechanism as listed above for an isolation ward operator is to be followed.
Is transmission to an operator of a Healthcare Facility, during the treatment of wastewater, possible? If yes, then what precautions can one take?
As of now, there is no evidence of such a transmission taking place, however, since prevention is better than cure, safety measures as provided by CPCB must be complied with, such as operators must ensure that treated wastewater is disinfected as per prevailing standard operating procedure to inactivate corona virus. Furthermore, as much as possible, the use of treated wastewater in utilities within Healthcare Facilities may be avoided. Pertinently, proper care must be undertaken to ensure that the operators associated with the handling of the discharge from healthcare facilities practice basic hygiene precautions and wear PPE kit.
Role of Regulatory Bodies
CBWTFs are essentially required to collect waste from COVID-19 isolation wards/ Quarantine Camps/Homes/ Testing Centers and report the same to the SPCBs. It is incumbent that COVID-19 waste be disposed-off immediately upon receipt at facility and the dedicated vehicle bringing the same, must be sanitized with appropriate chemical disinfectant.
Urban Local Bodies are bounden to ensure proper and careful collection and disposal of biomedical waste generated from Quarantine Camps/ Quarantine Homes/ Home Care for COVID-19 suspected persons. To further the abovementioned duty, the ULBs must identify CBWTFs, who would be responsible for directly collecting waste from quarantine camps. Yellow colored bags must be made available to the operators of the camps/ homes, either directly or through the CBWTFs. For the protection of the workers handling the waste, PPE kits must be provided and it shall also be ensured that the aforementioned bags are disinfected. Additionally, careless handling of the waste i.e. mixing up of the COVID-19 waste with the general waste must be strictly avoided and awareness regarding segregation of waste be spread by the ULB.
The SPCBs are primarily required to maintain the records of the COVID-19 treatment wards/self-care facilities. The SPCBs also ensure that bio-medical waste is properly disposed in light of the prevailing Rules and SoPs, the same is carried out through the coordination between the CBWTFs and ULBs.
Use of deep burial pits for disposal of yellow category waste as per standards prescribed in Schedule II of Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016 may be permitted in the scenario a particular State does not have CBTWFs. Additionally, the usage of HW incinerators may also be allowed if an exponentially large amount of yellow color coded waste is generated. Most importantly, every SPCB is mandated to upload the COVID-19 biomedical waste on the COVID19BWM web-portal developed by CPCB.
The authors understand that activities undertaken by the local municipal bodies must remain free from fetters due to the usage of word good faith under Section 73 of the Disaster Management Act. But there has to be some accountability. Maybe introduction of defined and wellarticulated rules under the Act regarding the disposal of bio-medical waste may be an answer to this issue.
TACKLING EFFICIENTLY OR GRAPPLING: A REALITY CHECK
Though various guidelines have been put in place to fortify a smooth mechanism for disposal of COVID-19 biomedical waste, however the concern regarding its effective implementation is still very prominent. Recently, in a report dated 27.07.2020, submitted by the Environment and Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a very depressing picture was brought to light – manifold increase in the quantum of COVID-19 biomedical waste in Delhi (near about 14 times more generation of waste in July as compared to May). This sorry state of affair clearly leads to the conclusion that despite having the best of rules/guidelines, we as a country are lacking somewhere. What are these implementation roadblocks? How do we address them?
Pertinently, the EPCA, recommended certain best practices which identified these roadblocks and provided a solution to demystify the same. Notably, some of these recommendations were conceded by the Supreme Court and subsequently directions were issued to ensure the compliance of the same.
The EPCA while identifying the key problem which has led to the increase in the amount of waste in the country, stated that, “While the system for collection of biomedical waste from healthcare facilities and registered laboratories is well established, in the case of COVID-19, the biomedical waste is being generated in homes and quarantine centers. This is where the key complication arises, as urban local bodies have to track the patients on a real-time basis and then set up systems for collection of biomedical waste from individual households located in different parts of the city.”
The Apex Court vide its order dated 31.07.2020, issued a mandate regarding uploading of data on the COVID19BWM APP, which provides the statistics of the biomedical waste sent to a CBWTF. This direction will essentially help the CPCB to keep a track on the treatment of the collected waste. Earlier, the uploading of data was not mandatory, however, now all the civic bodies are under a mandate to be in compliance of the same.
Additionally, the Apex Court also directed the municipal corporations to send the waste to CBWTF and not WTE, considering the fact that WTEs are not well equipped to dispose of the bio-medical waste, which requires a double incineration chamber for its proper disposal. A need for having a national barcode portal for monitoring the biomedical waste was also highlighted and in light of the same, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change and CPCB were directed to design a draft model.
The above directions indeed hint towards a flickering light at the end of the tunnel, which is effective disposal of COVID-19 biomedical waste. Moreover, the readers must also take note of the fact that India has taken measures at par with countries like Germany, China, France in laying down guidelines for disposal of waste. The basic practices such as (i) segregation of waste – proper labelling (ii) disinfection of transport that brings the waste(iii) phased incineration, are universal. Problem here is not lack of rules on the subject but the implementation, it is time that we follow the guidelines at institutional as well as individual levels.
With the spurt in the number of Covid-19 cases, it is implied that the waste will multiply manifold in the future, however it is in our hands to reduce the piling of waste by disposing it of properly, as they say it: We are all in this, together.
The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.
For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.
No need for a NOC to transfer flats built on land leased to the developer: SC
The Maharashtra government cannot require a “no objection certificate” from the collector in order to register the transfer of flats in cooperative societies built on land not provided directly by the state, the Supreme Court ruled last week.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the state government challenging a decision issued by the Bombay High Court on September 29, 2009, which held that the state could not insist on payment of a premium and the issuance of a NOC for registering the transfer of plots when there is clear evidence that the land was allotted first to builders who built flats and then sold it to purchasers. Following that, the owners formed a cooperative society.
The HC decision was based on a petition filed by Aspi Chinoy, a senior advocate in Mumbai, and the Cuffe Parade Residents Association, who were residents of the 22-story Jolly Maker Apartments.
The top court bench of justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna dismissed the state’s appeal on Friday, “Since the land was not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who have subsequently formed a Cooperative Society, the 1983 Resolution and 1999 Resolution would not be applicable to the members of such a society.”
The state had relied on two resolutions, dated May 12, 1983 and July 9, 1999, to levy a premium as a condition for granting permission for flat transfers.
The Resolution of 1983 provided for the grant of land at reduced rates to various categories of co-operative societies.
Following the 1983 Resolution, the government issued a modified resolution in 1999 that applied to co-operative societies to whom government lands were sanctioned at reduced rates.
Chinoy had approached the HC, questioning the resolutions’ relevance to their plot. He had challenged the collector’s letter of June 27, 2000 to the sub-registrar, Bombay City, Old Custom House, directing him not to register any transaction involving the transfer of flats in the buildings located in B.B.R. Block Nos. 3 and 5, Nariman Point and Cuffe Parade, Bombay, without first obtaining a NOC from the collector.
According to the residents, their building dates back to 1971, when the state government solicited bids for the lease of Plot Nos.93, 94, 99, 100, and 121 from Block V Back Bay Reclamation Estate. In response to the notice, M/s. Aesthetic Builders Pvt. Ltd. successfully won the bid and completed the construction of flats. On December 12, 1975, the building’s occupancy certificate was issued. Two years later, the owners established the Varuna Premises Cooperative Society Limited.
The bench said, “The present case is not a case where the land is allotted to a co-operative society by the government. The land was leased out to the builder, who was the successful bidder and after the ownership of flats was transferred to the private individuals, a society of the flat owners was formed.” The judges also lifted the stay on the refund order issued by the Supreme Court.
Chinoy claimed that the flat in which he lives was first sold to A Madhavan in 1972 and then to Reshmidevi Agarwal in 1978.
Chinoy then entered the picture by signing an agreement with Agarwal in December 2020 in exchange for five shares in the society.
Seeking centre’s response on plea for digitisation of medico-legal documents: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court in the case Dr. Mohamed Khader Meeran A.S v. State of Tamil Nadu observed and has recently sought the response of the Central and the State government on a plea seeking computerisation of medical records having legal importance, including postmortem report, injury report/ accident, etc.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar heard the case.
It was submitted by the petitioner, Dr Mohammed Khader Meeran that Medico Legal Examination and Postmortem Reporting (MedLeaPR) is a software developed by the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to issue various medico-legal reports and certificates digitally and to store the data in cloud storage in the encrypted form. Presently, the software is being used by many states and union territories in the country.
It was also directed by Madras High Court to implement this software in the state of Tamil Nadu by January 1st 2021. Thus, even though more than an year has passed, no effort has been made by any authority to implement the same, it was averred. The petitioner added that there is no standard proforma that exists in the State.
It was also contended by him that the present proforma is not at all at par with the standards prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case Samira Kohli Vs Dr. Prabha Manchanda And Anr., Civil Appeal No.1949 of 2004.
Further, the petitioner also submitted that documents like Injury Report, Post-Mortem Report (including viscera/chemical analysis report), report of examination after Sexual assault, age estimation reports have legal importance. However, if these are computerised, it would increase the efficiency of hospital administration, governments and the judiciary also.
The petitioner seek directions from the court to implement this software in all the Government hospitals.
Bail can’t be cancelled without giving notice to accused, giving him an opportunity of being heard: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court in the case Rajendra Kumar and 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home And Another observed that the cancellation of bail cannot be done without giving notice to the accused and giving him an opportunity of being heard.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed and has set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Raebareli cancelling the bail granted earlier to Rajendra Kumar and 2 others in connection with a criminal case.
It was noted by the High Court that the impugned order cancelling the bail was passed without issuing notice to the accused/applicants and without affording them a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing and the same was patently illegal being in flagrant violation of the rulings of the Supreme Court.
With this regard, it was also referred by the court to Apex Court’s rulings in the cases of Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee vs. State of W.B. and another case of (2004) 11 SCC 165, Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2004) 2 SCC 362, and the case P.K. Shaji alias Thammanam Shaji vs. State of Kerala.
In the present case the accused/applicants were granted bail vide by the Sessions Judge, Raebareli on November 22, 2021. Later, the court was informed that the accused allegedly threatened the witnesses and the complainant to desist from prosecuting the case after being granted bail.
The court finds that the aforesaid conduct of the applicants was violative of the conditions of bail subject to which they were enlarged on bail, it has been directed by the trial court that the applicants be taken into custody and also passed the impugned order cancelling the bail granted to the applicants.
The Applicant challenging the order, moved the Court arguing that in this case and their bail was cancelled without giving them any opportunity of being heard.
The court noted that it is a settled law that once bail has been granted by a competent court after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the same should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without there being any supervening circumstance(s) which are not conducive to the fair trial.
However, it was not made clear by the court that trial court would be at liberty to issue notice to the applicants stating therein the grounds which are to be considered by it for cancellation of bail being granted to the applicants.
Dispute Of Unregistered Partnership Firm Can Be Referred To Arbitration, Bar U/S 69 Partnership Act Not Applicable
The Calcutta High Court in the case Md. Wasim and Another v. M/S Bengal Refrigeration and Company and Others observed while hearing an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties, wherein it was held that the bars for instituting a suit or any other proceeding under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (‘Partnership Act’) shall not be applicable to arbitral proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
The present case of the applicants was that, although unregistered, a partnership deed was executed between the applicants and the respondents containing an Arbitration Clause mandating the referral of all disputes and questions to a person who ahs been appointed unanimously to act as an arbitrator.
However, a dispute arose between the parties, subsequent to which, the applicants sent a notice to the respondents invoking the arbitration clause and proposing the name of an advocate as sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute. The respondent denied the appointment of an arbitrator alleging that the allegations raised by the applicants in their initial notice were false. The applicants filed the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator, aggrieved in these circumstances,
The application was filled by the applicants and it was argued by the respondents that since the partnership firm was ‘unregistered,’ the dispute could not be referred to an arbitrator in view of the application of and the bar created by Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. Further, their case was that since sub-sections (1) and (2) read with sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act restrict the filing of suit by any person as a partner of an unregistered firm including by means of a claim under ‘other proceedings,’ the appointment of an arbitrator could not be seek by the applicant, the partnership deed in their case being ‘unregistered.’
It was observed that Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava relied on the Supreme Court decision in Umesh Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and on the Madras High Court decision in the case M/s. Jayamurugan Granite Exports v. M/s. SQNY Granites, wherein both of which held that arbitral proceedings shall not come under the expression ‘other proceedings’ of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 and that the ban imposed under Section 69 can have no application to arbitration proceedings and as well of the arbitral award under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
Accordingly, it was held by the Calcutta High Court that non-registration of the partnership firm would not attract the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, so far as institution of proceedings as stated under the provision of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is concerned.
Supreme Court: Terms Of Invitation To Tender Are Not Open To Judiciary Scrutiny Unless They Are Arbitrary, Discriminatory Or Mala Fide
The Supreme Court in the case Airports Authority of India versus Centre for Aviation Policy observed that the terms of invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the top court has set aside a Delhi High Court’s order which had quashed the Airport Authority of India’s tender conditions for selecting Ground Handling Agencies (GHA) agencies at Group D Airports.
The bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and the Justice Krishna Murari observed and has stated that the Delhi High Court committed a “serious error” by entertaining a writ petition at the instance of a third party- an group of advocacy called Centre For Aviation Policy -when none of the GHAs challenging the tender conditions. Thus, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of locus standi (Airports Authority of India versus Centre for Aviation Policy).
The court observed that in view of the matter, it is not appreciable how respondent No.1 (CAPSR) – original writ petitioner being an NGO would have any locus standi to maintain the writ petition, wherein challenging the tender conditions in the respective RFPs. Respondent No.1 cannot be said to be an aggrieved party in the case.
The Court stated that the even on merits, the High Court should not have interfered with the tender conditions, observed the Supreme Court. While referring to various precedents regarding limited scope of judicial interference in tender conditions
Further, the court stated that as per the settled position of law, the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide and as per the settled position of law, the terms of the Invitation to Tender are not being open to judicial scrutiny and the same being in the realm of the contract. The Government/tender/tenderer making authority must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender.
The bench observed and has stated that the court cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been wiser, fair, or logical.
It was observed that the AAI approached the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court dated July 14, 2021, by which it has allowed the said writ petition of the NGO and has struck down the decision to carry out region-wise sub-categorisation of the 49 airports falling under Group D-1 and the stipulation that only the previous work experience in respect of providing the GHS to scheduled aircrafts shall be considered and will be acceptable. It was also found by the High Court that the revised minimum Annual Turnover criteria of INR 18 crores as discriminatory and arbitrary.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court noted that the AAI explained before the High Court the rationale behind the respective conditions, namely, clustering of 49 airports into 4 region-wise sub-categories/clusters; criteria for evaluation of 36 months having experience in the past 7 years in providing 3 out of 7 Core GHS and the financial capacity and an Annual Turnover of Rs. 30 crores (modified as Rs. 18 crores) in any of the one of last three financial years.
The court stated that while having gone through the respective clauses/conditions which are held to be arbitrary and illegal by the High Court, the court is of the opinion that the same cannot be said to be malafide or/ arbitrary and/or actuated by bias. However, it was for the AAI to decide its own terms and fix the eligibility criteria.
Court sends Waqf Board scam co-accused to 14 day judicial custody
A Delhi court on Monday remanded Kausar Imran Siddiqui alias Laddan, co-accused in Delhi Waqf board scam case, to 14 days custody.
AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan is the primary accused in the case and is out on bail. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has stated that Laddan is a fund manager for Khan. The Duty Sessions Judge at Rouse Avenue Court also expressed its displeasure over the non-presence of ACB on the previous date.
ACB had submitted to the court Ladan’s “handwriting sample” and sought 7 days of custody for him.
The court observed that the agency had not given any reasonable answer for its absence on previous occasion. Thereafter, he was sent to 14 day judicial custody.
AAP MLA was arrested for alleged irregularities in appointment in Delhi Waqf Board during his chairmanship.
Accused Kausar Imran Siddiqui alias Laddan was produced on a production warrant before the court on 27th September. He was interrogated and arrested with the permission of the court.
Laddan’s name came into the frame, when additional public prosecutor Anil Srivastava opposed Khan’s bail plea. He stated that a diary was recovered from Ladan’s house. It was alleged that he was Khan’s fund manager. Earlier, the (ACB) had said that money was sent to Dubai and other money transactions need to be investigated. It also stated that a large amount of money was transferred to a party via Dubai. There were 100 people who either received or paid money to Laddan. Out of these 37 people have transactions of crores of rupees.
This diary also has an entry about one Zeeshan Haider, who received crores of rupees. He is also a close associate of the accused, ACB had argued. The ACB has also submitted that Laddan is a nominated functionary of a political party. He has photographs with the accused during an iftar party. Additionally, 14 crores sale deed is recovered, which is said to be a ‘Benami property’.
Previously, Ladan was in judicial custody in another case lodged at Jamia Nagar police station. He was arrested from Telangana.
Opinion2 years ago
South Block’s mistakes will now be corrected by Army
Sports2 years ago
When a bodybuilder breaks Shoaib’s record
News2 years ago
PM Modi must take governance back from babus
Spiritually Speaking2 years ago
Spiritual beings having a human experience
Legally Speaking2 years ago
Law relating to grant, rejection and cancellation of bail
News2 years ago
Chinese general ordered attack on Indian troops: US intel report
Royally Speaking2 years ago
The young royal dedicated to the heritage of Jaipur
Sports2 years ago
West Indies avoid follow-on, England increase lead to 219