The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on Vijayraj Surana’s plea seeking relaxation of his bail conditions in a ₹10,000 crore financial fraud case. The top court had earlier granted him bail, noting that prolonged detention before trial amounts to “punishment without conviction.”
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a daughter-in-law must support her mother-in-law with maintenance after securing compassionate employment post her husband’s death. Justice Brar emphasized moral duties alongside legal obligations, requiring her to pay Rs 10,000 monthly despite the absence of explicit mandates in Section 125 of the CrPC.
![[Sahara Fraud] SC Asks Sahara Group to Give list of Top Officials, Properties For Rs 10k Crore Refund To Investors](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-2024-09-04T102424.755.png?resize=400%2C237&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court has highlighted Sahara Group’s failure to comply with its order to deposit Rs 10,000 crore into the SEBI-Sahara refund account. The court has emphasized the need for transparency and has instructed the conglomerate to propose a scheme for selling unencumbered properties. Sebi has expressed concerns about the uncertainty regarding the timeline for the group’s payment of the outstanding amount.
The Delhi High Court has issued directives to address concerns of public prosecutors (PPs), mandating the provision of technological facilities, office space, and dress allowance. The PPs should be granted laptops and tablets every four years, and incentives for higher qualifications. Additional measures include security allowances and the creation of digital libraries in each district.