Kerala HC issues order to arrest Liberia-flagged vessel anchored at Vizhinjam
Justice MA Abdul Hakhim issued the order on the admiralty suit filed by five exporters who lost their consignment following the shipwreck. Advocate Joy Thattil Ittoop, counsel for the petitioners, submitted that each of them has lost certain containers.
The shipping company does not have any movable or immovable properties within the territory of India, and hence, they are entitled to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the court for the arrest and detention of the vessel. They submitted that if adequate safeguards are not made till the furnishing of the security, they will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
The court made it clear that the Warrant of Arrest would be withdrawn, and the conditional order of arrest would automatically be vacated once the amount is deposited or security is furnished by the company in the court, without any further order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
29 cases, 11 states, Rs 40 crore: Karnataka police nab Bihar man with several mule accounts for cybercrime
The Karnataka Police investigation into a cyber fraud case, in which a victim lost Rs 3.80 lakh, has resulted in the solving of 29 cases across 11 states, involving the siphoning of Rs 40 crore. The police arrested Hardeep Singh, 40, a resident of Patna in Bihar, on July 12 after finding through the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) that his accounts were allegedly involved in these cases, including the biggest fraud where a victim from Tamil Nadu lost Rs 9 crore. The Uttara Kannada CEN police registered a case on October 23 last year, when a person named Raphael Fernandes from Karwar filed a complaint stating that his brother, Wilson Fernandes, had lost Rs 3.80 lakh to cyber fraudsters. According to the complaint, he had received a call from someone claiming to be from the police department that there was a courier in his name, which contained the banned narcotic substance MDMA. After someone posed as a Mumbai crime branch police officer, Fernandes allegedly transferred money to fraudsters. The police brought the accused to Karwar after arresting him in Bihar. A probe revealed that his accounts were used not just for digital arrests but also for investment frauds and that he was part of a larger nexus, said a police officer. During the investigation, it was revealed that Singh allegedly had eight savings accounts and two current accounts in his name, which were used to siphon huge amounts of money from fraudsters. He received more than Rs 1 crore as commission for it, said a police officer. B Ashwini, Deputy SP of Uttara Kannada CEN police station, said, 'Upon checking, we found that he was running a small jewellery shop, often known as a one-gram gold shop. He had a GST number for his shop and also had a Udyam certificate issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), which helped him to open current accounts as well.' In Tamil Nadu, Rs 9.09 crore was siphoned off, in Andhra Pradesh, Rs 2.47 crore, in Bengaluru's Marathahalli, Rs 80 lakh, and in Pulikeshi Nagar, Bengaluru, Rs 74.60 lakh, the police said. A police officer said Singh attempted to bribe the police, claiming he had done so previously to avoid detection.
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
HDB Financial Services share price sinks 3% after Q1 earnings
HDB Financial Services Share Price: Shares of HDB Financial Services Limited fell around 3 per cent on Wednesday (July 16). Shares of HDB Financial Services settled at Rs 816.05 apiece on NSE. On BSE, the shares of HDB Financial Services declined 3.13 per cent to settle at Rs 814.75. On Tuesday, HDB Financial Services reported a 2.4 per cent decline in net profit at Rs 568 crore for the first quarter of this financial year. Its net profit was at Rs 582 crore during April-June quarter of 2024-15, HDB Financial Services, a subsidiary of HDFC Bank, said in a regulatory filing. The company said its net total income was at Rs 2,726 crore as on June 30, 2025, compared to Rs 2,387 crore as on June 30, 2024, a growth of 14.2 per cent. Its asset under management (AUM) was Rs 1,09,690 crore as on June 30, 2025, up 14.7 per cent from the year-ago period. As on June 30, 2025, HDB Financial Services said its net interest income stood at Rs 2,092 crore, compared to Rs 1,768 crore in the year-ago period, a growth of 18.3 per cent. HDB Financial Services Limited is a component of the BSE IPO. According to the BSE analytics (as of July 16), shares of HDB Financial Services gave negative returns of 3.08 per cent and 3.11 per cent in the last 1 week and 2 weeks, respectively. Shares of HDB Financial Services Ltd listed on NSE and BSE on July 2. It got listed with a premium of nearly 14 per cent against the issue price of Rs 740. The company's stock began trading at Rs 835, a 12.83 per cent jump from the issue price on the BSE. At the NSE, shares of the firm were listed at Rs 835. The Rs 12,500-crore initial share sale of HDB Financial Services got subscribed 16.69 times on the closing day of bidding. The mega initial public offer (IPO) had a price band of Rs 700-740 per share.
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why the SC has made secretly recorded conversations between spouses in court
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that secretly recorded conversations between spouses are admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings. It set aside a 2021 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had barred a husband, who sought a divorce, from using secretly recorded phone conversations with his wife as evidence in court. The apex court's ruling changes the contours of spousal or marital privilege in Indian law, which protects private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage, and even after the marriage has ended. Spousal privilege means that a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in a criminal case. It is rooted in the idea that a degree of protection has to be provided to private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage. In India, Section 122 of the Evidence Act codifies this. It states: 'No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative-in-interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.' Spousal communication is allowed as evidence, according to the law, when the other spouse consents or when one spouse has narrated the events to a third party who testifies in a court. Otherwise, even if a spouse accidentally spills the beans, it is struck off the record as inadmissible evidence that the court cannot rely upon. Spousal privilege does not apply directly in divorce cases where one spouse makes allegations against the other spouse and testifies in a court of law. These allegations are supplemented by evidence such as letters, photographs or testimonies of other people. However, with technological advances, text messages, video and voice recordings, emails are often presented as evidence. Many High Courts have refrained from accepting secret recordings as evidence due to two main reasons: The SC's ruling relied on its 1973 judgment in a case, which pertained to a telephonic conversation recorded by the police to prove a bribery charge against a doctor. At the time, the apex court overlooked how the evidence was obtained, given that the case involved corruption by a public servant and the phone tap was by the state. The SC has now effectively extended this reasoning to matrimonial cases. The court has said that if evidence is relevant, independently verifiable, and falls within statutory exceptions, it can be admitted even if collected in secret. It has also been said that secret recordings are a violation of fundamental rights, but the right to privacy has to be balanced with the right to a fair trial. The SC has interpreted Section 122 to mean that while an individual cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, it is not impermissible to allow evidence to that effect, especially in matrimonial disputes. The ruling says a telephone that secretly records conversations is 'no different from an eavesdropper.' Simply put, the court here is equating digital evidence to a third party who is a witness to a privileged conversation and is testifying. The SC recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2017. The current ruling is an example of how the court operationalises this right to privacy. The court, in its interpretation of Section 122, said that the provision was drafted into 'sanctity of the marriage' and not to protect privacy within marriage. This is perhaps true for a law of the Victorian era — the Evidence Act came into force in 1872. But privacy as a is now a fundamental right, which protects the inner sphere of the individual from interference from both state and non-state actors. Any infringement of the right to privacy has to be backed by a valid law. The SC also disagreed with the argument that making secret recordings admissible in court would lead to surveillance within marriage. It said, 'If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them.' There is also a concern that the ruling could affect women's right to a fair trial, as there is a huge gender gap in smartphone ownership and access to technology in India. There is a 39% divide in ownership of smartphones by women compared to men in the country, according to the Mobile Gender Gap Report 2025. When evidence can be collected at the click of a button, the party with easier access to such technology naturally gets the upper hand.
