Gaurav Taneja, aka Flying Beast, denied a house a day before moving in because owner thinks he committed child abuse
In his latest vlog, he spoke about moving houses, and said, 'Let me tell you about the tragedy that happened with us. Yesterday was supposed to be our last day in this house. But we are still in this house, and we'll probably stay here for four or five more days. Everything has been packed, but the house that we were supposed to move into, they cancelled our deal at the last minute. Everything is packed in the house, but we don't have a place to move.'
Also read – Gaurav Taneja aka Flying Beast freezes as he simulates Air India Flight 171 crash: 'All you can do is watch the ground come at you'
He continued, 'It's a tough situation to be in. It sounds insignificant, but imagine. Now we have to look for a new house. Let me tell you what happened. The house was finalised, we'd paid the security deposit. Then, the man we were leasing the house from must have googled me. Somebody forwarded him a link and said, 'This guy is evil, he's been accused of child abuse'. This was the lawsuit that happened a few years ago, when the Delhi High Court told a newspaper to take down an article about me. Articles from that time still exist online, and the guy saw one of them. He refused to give us the house.'
Gaurav concluded, mentioning the controversy around his relationship with Ritu, 'Social media is so powerful. Even the divorce controversy that happened, lots of meme pages and paparazzi pages posted stuff about our separation. Those videos were circulated to millions, and it doesn't matter that I made a clarification later, because millions still believe that I'm a bad guy.'
Ritu clarified the rumours in a video, and said that nobody has the right to comment on their relationship. Reacting to the rumours, Gaurav had shared on social media, 'I will remain quiet for my kids and the mother of my child. Ready to live with all the negativity and hate for my entire life. Please don't expect any public explanation.' He added, 'Men are made villains very fast. Social media is not a place to discuss family matters. I have nothing to say.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Big Setback For Jacqueline Fernandez In Rs 200 Crore Money Laundering Case
New Delhi: In a big setback for Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez, the Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to quash criminal proceedings against her in connection with a Rs 200 crore money laundering case, involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. The bench of Justice Anish Dayal has rejected the quashing petition filed by Ms Fernandez. The court had reserved the decision in April after hearing arguments from all the parties in the case. The Bollywood actor's counsel had claimed in the High Court that she was unaware of the illicit origin of gifts she received, which are allegedly part of a Rs 200 crore money laundering case involving the conman. Her lawyer claimed that she did not know that the gifts were part of the proceeds of crime. The Bollywood actress had also sought quashing of the second supplementary chargesheet of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the case and proceedings pending in a trial court. However, the ED argued that her petition was not maintainable as a special court had taken cognisance of the chargesheet and prima facie found a case. While the same cognisance order of the trial court was not challenged by her. Sukesh Chandrasekhar is currently lodged in jail for allegedly duping the spouses of former promoters of Ranbaxy, Shivinder Singh and Malvinder Singh of Rs 200 crore. He is facing multiple investigations across the country over such cases. According to the ED, Chandrasekhar and his wife Leena Paulose, allegedly used hawala routes and created shell companies along with other accused persons to park the money earned as proceeds of crime. "It is also not the case of ED that she was aware that gifts she received were part of proceeds of crime," the actress's counsel had argued in court. The ED has alleged that Ms Fernandez did not verify the newspaper article about Sukesh Chandrasekar. She received gifts from him. However, Ms Fernandez's lawyer submitted that the actress came across the newspaper article in February 2019. But newspaper article is not evidence. It was further claimed by her lawyer that she was convinced by co-accused Pinky Irani that Sukesh was being made a scapegoat as he had high political connections.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Ahead Of Air India Crash Report, A Recap Of The Dreamliner's Sketchy Past
Air India flight AI171, which crashed seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad airport on June 12 killing all but one on board, was a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Till that fateful day, not a single Dreamliner had been involved in a crash. The Dreamliner fleet has been airborne since 2011 and nearly every third widebody aircraft flying across the world today is a Boeing 787. The Ahmedabad crash is being seen as a rare occurrence, but what caused the crash? Theories abound, but only two broad themes matter - was it equipment failure, or was it human error? Aviation experts have already ruled out environmental factors such as a storm, lightning, etc, since it was a clear day. Terrorism as a cause has also not been established till now, though it will be conclusively ruled out only after the investigation into the crash has been completed. According to reports, the preliminary probe report of the crash is expected to be released next week. So as of now, the only two plausible possibilities are: either the aircraft systems malfunctioned, or there was a cockpit error. All Eyes On Boeing Boeing & Co, the manufacturer of the Dreamliners, has found itself in the spotlight after this crash. It has anyway been under intense global scrutiny for alleged malpractices in quality checks while making aircraft, including the 787s, for some time now. Last year, Sam Salehpour, a veteran quality engineer with Boeing for the 777s and also other aircraft, including the 787s (Dreamliners), who later turned into a whistleblower, gave a written testimony to the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. In his testimony, Salehpour alleged that Boeing prioritises "speed of production over safety and quality and incentivizes management to overlook significant defects in Boeing's airplanes". He said, "Despite what Boeing officials state publicly, there is no safety culture at Boeing and employees like me who speak up about defects with its production activities and lack of quality control are ignored, marginalized, threatened, sidelined, and worse." Some of Salehpour's allegations are quite damning, particularly on the 787s. Boeing has denied all of these allegations. Salehpour went on to say that while working on the 787s in late 2020, he observed that Boeing had begun taking shortcuts to reduce bottlenecks in production and speed up the delivery of 787s, allowing defective parts and defective installations in the Dreamliner fleet. Specifically, he alleged that improper fastening of fuselage sections posed risks to the aircraft's longevity and could lead to a mid-flight breakup of the aircraft after many thousand trips. While the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken note of Salehpour's allegations and started an investigation into Boeing's practices, the regulator has not come out with its findings till now. Perhaps the crash at Ahmedabad will spur the FAA to hasten the probe. Not just Salhepour's allegations, Boeing has been in FAA crosshairs earlier too for the Dreamliner fleet. In 2013, two 787s operated by Japan Airlines caught fire, which was later attributed to overheating of the aircraft's lithium-ion batteries. At that time, the FAA had quickly grounded the whole of the Dreamliner fleet and had also banned fresh deliveries of these aircraft from Boeing. The manufacturer then fixed the problem by offering an improved battery insulation, among other solutions, before the Dreamliners were allowed to fly again. So, in the aftermath of the deadly Ahmedabad crash, the FAA needs to not just close the existing probe and release its report, but perhaps Boeing should also be subjected to enhanced scrutiny. What About Engine Maker? But in all the focus on Boeing and its alleged malpractices, are we missing the woods for the trees? If the AI 171 crash involved a twin-engine failure, as is being widely believed now, shouldn't the engine manufacturer - GE Aerospace in this case - also have the spotlight turned on to itself? The aircraft that crashed was at least 12 years old, and it is unlikely that Boeing had anything significant to do with it in this period of time - while GE and the Air India maintenance teams would have had to do regular checks. So, along with questioning Boeing, perhaps tough posers should also be made to the maintenance practices at Air India and the role of GE Aerospace. Of course, if the investigation report points to a design flaw with aircraft, any software glitch in electronics, or so on, then Boeing would be culpable - simply because an aircraft engine does not work in isolation, it works in coordination with the rest of hardware and software. DGCA's Hesitation Across the globe, more than 1,100 Dreamliner aircraft are currently in operation with different airlines. Air India has 33 in its fleet, but the largest number of Dreamliners is currently being operated by a couple of American carriers. Their predominance in American airlines' fleets is perhaps one of the reasons the FAA has refrained from grounding the Dreamliner fleet after the Air India crash. A Reuters report quotes US officials and FAA officials as saying that they had not seen any data that would require a grounding of all Dreamliners - as yet. But nothing explains the Indian safety regulator DGCA's reluctance to ground the Dreamliner fleet till investigators get some idea about what caused the crash. The AI 171 crash is being probed by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), with experts from several countries joining in. Whatever the findings of the AAIB investigation, one thing is clear: the families and loved ones of the crash victims need answers, and these can only come when culpability is clearly fixed - without undue delay. (Sindhu Bhattacharya is a senior journalist. She has been associated with leading media platforms and has written extensively on aviation policy and airlines.)
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court junks actor Jacqueline Fernandez's plea against ED's FIR
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (July 3, 2025) dismissed a plea by Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez for quashing an FIR against her in a ₹200 crore money laundering case, involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar. Justice Anish Dayal dismissed her plea, which also sought to quash the second supplementary chargesheet of the Enforcement Directorate in the case and proceedings pending in a Delhi trial court. The ED counsel opposed the petition on the ground of maintainability, saying a special court had taken cognisance of the prosecution complaint (chargesheet) and prima facie found a case. The cognisance order was not challenged, the counsel added. Ms. Fernandez is an accused in the money laundering case lodged against Mr. Chandrasekhar and had appeared before the ED for questioning in the investigation. Delhi Police had booked Mr. Chandrasekhar for allegedly duping the spouses of former promoters of Ranbaxy, Shivinder Singh and Malvinder Singh of ₹200 crore. There are other ongoing investigations against him in several cases across the country. Mr. Chandrasekhar and his wife Leena Paulose, facing proceedings in a money laundering case of the ED, were arrested by Delhi Police along with others. The police invoked the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in the case. Ms. Paulose and Mr. Chandrasekhar were alleged to have used hawala routes and created shell companies along with other accused persons to park the money earned as proceeds of crime.
