Hyderabad: Telangana High Court Judge Mausumi Bhattacharya dismissed a writ petition challenging the recovery order issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs under the National Overseas Scholarship (NOS) scheme. The order sought refund of scholarship money from an assistant professor, who had allegedly failed to complete the course and was working in the Department of Environmental Sciences of the Central University of Rajasthan. Assistant professor Dr. who opposed the legality of the ministry’s demand to return Rs 15,21,651 including the scholarship amount and air ticket price. D. The judge heard the writ petition filed by Bhagwan. It is illegal and a violation of the constitution. It is also alleged that the impugned order was issued by the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice and should be returned without proper notice or hearing within two months. The ministry argued that the NOS scheme guidelines clearly specify that beneficiaries who fail to complete their study abroad program will have to return the entire scholarship amount. The respondents emphasized that the petitioner was fully aware of this condition when he received the scholarship. During the hearing, the petitioner stated that the recovery demand was excessive and insisted that only the unspent portion of the scholarship should be held responsible. The judge found the recovery order consistent with the terms of the scheme and directed the petitioner to refund the full amount of ₹ 15,21,651 as per NOS scheme guidelines. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the writ petition.
Registration of statutory non-compliance complaint against the firm
A commercial complaint against statutory non-compliances by Pinnacle Capital Solutions Private Limited came up for hearing in the Telangana High Court. According to the writ petitioner, Virinchi Capital Private Limited, the petition to draw the attention of the authorities to the constitutional violation on a large scale has become useless. It filed a writ petition challenging the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) decision not to initiate any action against Pinnacle Capital Solutions. The firm has allegedly failed to comply with RBI guidelines on digital lending dated September 2, 2022 and default loss guarantee on June 8, 2023. The informal respondent is alleged to have failed to comply with the guidelines dated 8.6.2023, particularly clause 6 which places a cap on the total amount of DLG, which a regulated entity can levy on a loan service provider, the petitioner in this case. Senior counsel Avinash Desai, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out the letter of the informal respondent in which it is admitted that the informal respondent had withheld a large amount of DLG as compared to the maximum five percent prescribed under Section 6 of the 2023 Guidelines. After hearing the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the judge observed that the petitioner has established a prima facie case for grant of interim relief and accordingly passed an order directing the RBI to consider the representation. The judge allowed the writ petition and ordered notice to the respondent authorities. The case has been posted for further investigation.
Woman and daughter acquitted of murder charges
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court quashed the conviction of a mother and her daughter convicted by a criminal court of murdering her ex-husband. According to the indictment, Shantamma and her daughter Sangeeta killed Balappa in May 2014 because of his addiction and abuse. An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be “homicidal asphyxia due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to strangulation.” Based on the evidence, both were found guilty. Advocate T. present on behalf of Legal Services Committee. Bala Jayashree said the statement of the witness was contradictory and could not be relied upon. Justice K. According to the panel of Surendra and Justice Anil Kumar, the evidence of the jury’s witness has cast doubt on the accuracy of the evidence of entering the house and finding the dead body. Speaking for the panel, Justice Surendra said, “The prosecution case cannot rely on circumstances which are loosely woven and the prosecution version has many inconsistencies and inconsistencies. The prosecution version must always be convincing and without any element of suspicion or suspicion. As discussed earlier, about 34 hours to file a complaint The delay is not explained. Although the accused absconded, they were not arrested. The alleged surrender to the police was made to PW.7, who was not familiar with the accused no.1 and 2 It is after the confession. No concrete reason has been given for the alleged confession of the accused to PW.3”.