News Desk, Amar Ujala, Mumbai

Published by: Amit Mandal
Friday, 17 December 2021 09:42 PM Updated to IST

Summary

New information has come out about NCB official Sameer Wankhede, who came to light after allegations of corruption over the arrest of Shahrukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan at a drug party during a holiday in Mumbai.

Listen to the news

Mumbai Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede’s tenure expires on December 31 and he is not seeking an extension, the NCB said on Friday. During his tenure, between August 20 and December 20, 96 people were arrested and a total of 28 cases were registered. In 2021, 234 people were arrested and 117 cases were registered, amounting to about Rs. 1791 kg of drugs worth Rs 1000 crore were seized and Rs. Assets worth over Rs 11 crore were seized.

Wanting couple suit on Twitter
Social media giant Twitter on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) zonal director Sameer Wankhede and his wife against the company over a few posts in a Mumbai court, saying they were not factual or legal. Valid on a case-by-case basis. Wankhede and his actor-wife Kranti Redkar went to civil court in Borivali last month, demanding that social media giants, including Twitter, be ordered to refrain from publishing or displaying any malicious and defamatory content against them on their platforms.

Both also sought interim relief until a decision is made on their application. On Friday, Twitter filed its response before the court, which is an arbitrator and is not responsible for the content posted on its platform under the relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000.

Therefore, the micro-blogging and social networking site is not responsible for posting any offensive content on its platform by its users. The social media organization stated that the claim and application made here are false, frivolous and disturbing and are not valid on the basis of facts or law and should be dismissed. The company stated that the court had no jurisdiction to preside over the matter, citing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC).

The company said the couple sought to enforce the jurisdiction of this court based on their place of residence. However, it is a established law that the plaintiff’s place of residence is not relevant to determine the territorial jurisdiction in any lawsuit. According to the CrPC, a lawsuit can only be filed where the defendant resides. The plaintiffs failed to show how the proceedings were conducted within this court.

Range

Mumbai Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede’s tenure expires on December 31 and he is not seeking an extension, the NCB said on Friday. During his tenure, between August 20 and December 20, 96 people were arrested and a total of 28 cases were registered. In 2021, 234 people were arrested and 117 cases were registered, amounting to about Rs. 1791 kg of drugs worth Rs 1000 crore were seized and Rs. Assets worth over Rs 11 crore were seized.

Wanting couple suit on Twitter

Social media giant Twitter on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) zonal director Sameer Wankhede and his wife against the company over a few posts in a Mumbai court. Valid on a case-by-case basis. Wankhede and his actor-wife Kranti Redkar went to civil court in Borivali last month, demanding that social media giants, including Twitter, be ordered to refrain from publishing or displaying any malicious and defamatory content against them on their platforms.

Both also sought interim relief until a decision is made on their application. On Friday, Twitter filed its response before the court, which is an arbitrator and is not responsible for the content posted on its platform under the relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000.

Therefore, the micro-blogging and social networking site is not responsible for posting any offensive content on its platform by its users. The social media organization stated that the claim and application made here are false, frivolous and disturbing and are not valid on the basis of facts or law and should be dismissed. The company stated that the court had no jurisdiction to preside over the matter, citing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC).

The company said the couple sought to enforce the jurisdiction of this court based on their place of residence. However, it is a established law that the plaintiff’s place of residence is not relevant to determine the territorial jurisdiction in any lawsuit. According to the CrPC, a lawsuit can only be filed where the defendant resides. The plaintiffs failed to show how the proceedings were conducted within this court.

.



Source link

Write A Comment