Karnataka High Court quashes injunction against Dakshina Kannada media house
However, the court remitted the matter to the sessions court with a direction to consider the interlocutory applications afresh, bearing in mind the observations made in the order.
Justice M Nagaprasanna pronounced the order while partly allowing the petition filed by 'Kudla Rampage', which challenged the legality of the injunction order dated July 18, passed by the 10th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru.
Making clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the civil suit pending before the sessions court and also the criminal proceedings or the veracity of the allegations and the counter allegations, the high court said all contentions, except the one considered in this petition, should remain open and the petitioner and other parties should extend their full cooperation to the sessions court in passing the necessary orders.
The petitioner was one among the 338 defendants before the sessions court, which passed the ex-parte injunction order restraining defamatory reporting against the plaintiff, his family, the temple administration and its affiliated institutions. It was also directed for the removal and de-indexing of over 8,842 web links.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
9 minutes ago
- India.com
Dev Anand made her star, Dawood Ibrahim was madly in love with her, producer was murdered, she left India, went to Pakistan due to..., name is...
The most memorable era of Bollywood was from the 80s to the 90s when many new faces tried their luck in the industry. While some sustained, others had to leave as they couldn't make a mark. Then there were those actors and actresses who were allegedly known for their connection with the underworld. Today, we will discuss an actress who was Pakistani but wanted to become a big name in Bollywood. However, she had to leave the industry soon, and the reason was fugitive Dawood Ibrahim. If you are wondering who we are talking about, this actress is Anita Ayub. Who is Anita Ayub? Born in Karachi, Pakistan, Anita studied in an all-girls college. She earned a master's degree in English Literature from Karachi University before moving to India to pursue acting. Anita enrolled at the Roshan Taneja School of Acting in Mumbai, where Roshan Taneja became her mentor. In 1993, she returned to India to shoot an advertisement, during which she met Dev Anand. Impressed by her ad, Dev Anand cast her in his film Pyar Ka Tarana. In 1993, Anita made her in the film Pyar Ka Tarana alongside Dev Anand. After this, she again worked with Dev Anand in the film Gangster in 1995, which was a box-office success. Anita Ayub's Career Was Ruined A major turn in Anita's life came when rumors about her dating Dawood Ibrahim began to spread. Both were spotted together multiple times. In 1995, producer Javed Siddiqui turned down the actress an refused to cast her in his next Bollywood project, and shortly afterward, he was murdered. Many reports claim that Siddiqui was shot by Ibrahim's men. Later, the Pakistan-based magazine Fashion Central reported that many in the industry believed Anita Ayub to be a Pakistani spy, leading to her being banned from films. Following these allegations and controversies, her Bollywood career came to a complete halt.
Mint
9 minutes ago
- Mint
Why Mortgage Lenders Are Ignoring Trump's Rollback on Home Appraisal Reviews
At one midsized US mortgage lender, almost a quarter of customers who dispute property appraisals find that the value of their home had been miscalculated. It's an industrywide issue that has historically penalized minority groups, and now President Donald Trump has offered lenders the chance to ignore his predecessor's attempts to make it easier for homeowners to question the valuations assigned by property appraisers. Trump has scrapped some of the guidelines, part of his team's vow to stamp out what it sees as initiatives that support diversity, equity and inclusion. Many financial professionals agree that home appraisals can be unreliable, and that Black homeowners and other minorities are often put at a significant disadvantage. This can be especially damaging given that home ownership is the top wealth-creation tool in the US — and an appraisal is a key determinant of how much, if anything, someone can borrow. With their decision to end some of the requirements related to home valuations, however, Trump and his cabinet members may have little impact on lenders' practices. That's because there's fresh evidence that the changes the Biden administration put in place are supported by the industry. Some of the country's biggest lenders, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and U.S. Bancorp, said they would make no policy changes as a result of the rollback. New American Funding, which also isn't planning to change its approach, was the only financial institution of more than 10 contacted by Bloomberg to disclose information about disputed home valuations. The Tustin, California-based mortgage lender, which provided roughly $14 billion of mortgage loans last year, said an average 2.5% of its customers request new valuations each month. Of those contested, roughly 22% are found to need an adjustment. New American didn't share a breakdown of borrowers' requests by race. 'The changes have made it much easier for the borrower,' said Michelle Rogers, New American's chief valuation officer. 'It's more transparent and the borrower knows they can initiate it.' The appraisal directives were put in place following a deep dive by the Biden administration into prejudices in the business. One of Trump's housing regulators, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, said rolling them back was part of an attempt by the president to put an end to the 'obsession' with DEI. The administration also has vowed to make deep cuts to the federal apparatus that enforced fair housing and fair lending laws, from slashing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau staff to gutting the Justice Department's Civil Rights division. A HUD official who spoke on background said the department's recent reforms simply reverted its stance to the way things were before Biden-era regulators imposed their standards. Lenders aren't being barred from letting borrowers dispute their appraisals, said the official who declined to be identified. The White House hasn't responded to a request for comment. Black homeowners have long reported having their homes valued more highly after taking down all evidence of their race. Research from the Brookings Institution and the federally controlled housing finance agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has shown that home appraisals can be affected by racial bias, which in turn affects the value of homes in entire neighborhoods. Brookings found, for example, that homes in neighborhoods where the majority of residents are Black are valued between 21% and 23% lower than comparable homes in white neighborhoods, with appraisal bias as one of several contributing factors. Economists at Freddie Mac reported in 2021 that greater percentages of homes in majority Black and Latino census tracts were undervalued compared with those in white census tracts, leading them to conclude that there was a 'valuation gap' between homes in different neighborhoods. The appraisal problem for minority borrowers also is a problem for lenders, since having low appraisals can prevent a homeowner from qualifying for a mortgage refinancing or a new home loan. That means the lender loses out on valuable business. Banks also suffer when appraisers make mistakes in the opposite direction, valuing properties too highly, because it means the bank can't safely rely on the value of a property as collateral for a loan. The reforms that the mortgage industry recently adopted to try to make the appraisal process fairer originated with a Biden administration task force called PAVE , which was formed in 2021. The group consisted of public officials from 13 different agencies, and its goal was to produce a report with recommended changes to a suite of different mortgage industry standards. PAVE recommended more training for home appraisers and higher standards for appraisers seeking to qualify for professional licenses. Those changes were handled by the Appraisal Foundation, a nonprofit organization that serves as the regulator for home appraisers. A spokeswoman for the foundation declined to comment on the Trump administration's recent changes, but said that new education and licensing standards put in place last year are still in effect. PAVE also called for an industrywide requirement for mortgage lenders to let borrowers request 'a reconsideration of value' if they disagreed with an appraiser's determination. Last year, regulators began requiring mortgage lenders to decide how they would standardize their procedures and to explain them clearly to their customers. In a rare win for the government, the policy received support from the Mortgage Bankers Association. Federal housing regulation includes a web of rules issued by different agencies, including HUD and also Fannie and Freddie. The new home-appraisal guidance went into effect for all of the housing agencies. But so far, the Trump administration has only rolled back the policy for mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which help low- to moderate-income families attain home ownership. On July 17, Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, proposed a bill that would make mortgage lenders' ROV policies required by law. It also would expand public access to data on mortgage appraisals by forcing a federal housing regulator to more regularly share details. While fair-housing advocates support the proposal, the bill also has backing from a more unlikely source: the National Association of Mortgage Brokers. The group represents more than 500,000 mortgage brokers across the US. Its president, Jim Nabors, called the proposed bill 'critical' for ensuring fairness for homebuyers and added: 'Our entire board of directors and membership applaud Senator Warnock.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Jeanine Pirro's career trajectory: From law review to the capital's top prosecutor
Not every federal appointment stems from quiet merit; some are thunderous, drawing attention not just for who is chosen, but for what they represent. Jeanine Pirro's confirmation as the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is one such moment, an appointment steeped in controversy, allegiance, and ideology. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now But beneath the headlines, behind the firebrand persona that once lit up cable news, lies a rigorous academic foundation that launched a lifelong legal career. Long before she was a Fox News icon or a trusted voice in Donald Trump's political orbit, Jeanine Ferris Pirro was a diligent student, a driven legal mind, and a woman determined to stand out in the male-dominated world of law. The formative years: Ambition at an early age Born on June 2, 1951, in Elmira, New York, to Lebanese-American parents, Pirro knew by the age of six that she wanted to be an attorney. It wasn't a childish whim but a guiding ambition that defined her academic path. She graduated from Notre Dame High School in just three years, a pace that foreshadowed the intensity she would later bring to her legal and media careers. While still in high school, she interned at the Chemung County District Attorney's Office, an unusually early exposure to criminal justice that would shape her approach to prosecution in years to come. Academic credentials: A career built on legal rigour Pirro pursued her undergraduate studies at the University at Buffalo, where she earned her Bachelor of Arts degree. But it was at Albany Law School where she truly made her mark. There, she earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) in 1975, graduating with distinction and serving as an editor of the Albany Law Review, a role reserved for top-performing students with proven analytical and writing skills. Her academic record at Albany positioned her for competitive roles in the legal field, and shortly after graduating, she joined the Westchester County District Attorney's Office as an Assistant District Attorney, becoming one of the few women in that office during the mid-1970s. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Legal knowledge meets television stardom Pirro's legal scholarship didn't fade when she transitioned to television. Her commentary, while often polarizing, was informed by decades of experience and a deep understanding of the law. Whether as a legal analyst during the O.J. Simpson trial or later as host of Justice with Judge Jeanine, she deployed her academic foundation to connect legal principles with public discourse. Her seven published books, including Liars, Leakers, and Liberals, draw not only from political opinion but also legal argumentation and rhetorical structuring rooted in formal training. From education to execution: The D.C. appointment When Donald Trump named Pirro as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia in May 2025 and saw her confirmed by the Senate on August 2, it wasn't just a political elevation. It marked the culmination of a career that began with careful study of case law and constitutional texts. The same woman who once edited scholarly legal articles will now oversee some of the most consequential federal prosecutions in the nation's capital. Critics argue that her Fox News rhetoric and allegiance to Trump overshadow her qualifications. But even her harshest detractors rarely question her academic record or her legal acumen. Her law school credentials, judicial experience, and prosecutorial background form a foundation that, at least on paper, supports the authority of her new post. A legacy rooted in law Jeanine Pirro's path to power has never been conventional. But while her media persona commands headlines, her ascent began with the quiet, disciplined work of legal education. From the halls of Albany Law School to the corridors of federal power, her story is one of ambition, academic rigor, and relentless pursuit. Whether her tenure in Washington serves justice or stirs controversy, one truth remains: it all started with a young woman who believed that the law was her calling—and had the academic record to prove it.
