Category: Legal

  • CAT Rules Kerala Excise Commissioner Must Be an IAS Officer

    KOCHI (Friday, March 6, 2026) — In a landmark 112-page judgment, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, ruled that the post of Excise Commissioner in Kerala is an IAS cadre post and cannot be held by non-IAS officers. The tribunal’s decision, delivered by Judicial Member Justice Sunil Thomas and Administrative Member V. Rama Mathew, mandated that if such cadre posts are held by non-IAS or retired IAS officers, they “shall stand removed forthwith.”


    Impact on Current Leadership

    The ruling directly affects the current administrative setup of the Kerala government, particularly the tenure of senior IPS officer M.R. Ajith Kumar.

    • Removal of ADGP M.R. Ajith Kumar: The tribunal specifically declared the appointment of current Excise Commissioner M.R. Ajith Kumar—an IPS officer—as illegal. He must be removed from the post immediately, and the position must remain vacant until a serving IAS officer is appointed.
    • Wider Administrative Reshuffle: Beyond the Excise Department, the CAT identified several other key institutions where appointments were found to be in violation of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 2014:
      • IMG Director General: Currently held by Tinku Biswal (serving IAS), but the tribunal criticized the previous “clandestine redesignation” that allowed retired IAS officer K. Jayakumar to hold a similar role.
      • KILA Director: The post of Director at the Kerala Institute of Local Administration was also declared an IAS cadre post. The appointment of Joy Elamon (a non-IAS officer) was questioned.

    Key Judicial Observations

    The CAT’s order came following a petition by the Kerala IAS Association, which alleged that the state government was bypassing cadre rules for political reasons.

    IssueTribunal’s Observation
    Excise RoleThe Excise Commissioner manages revenue and administration under the Taxes Department, functions that are not exclusive to police expertise.
    Cadre IntegrityFilling cadre posts by renaming or redesignating them is a “fraud on the law” and a “colourable exercise of executive functions.”
    Civil Services BoardThe state must convene the Civil Services Board (CSB) for all IAS transfers and postings, a practice the petitioners alleged had been dismantled since 2015.
    Minimum TenureRe-emphasized the Supreme Court’s mandate that civil servants should generally be given a two-year minimum tenure to ensure stability.

    Quashed Transfer Orders

    The tribunal also quashed three specific transfer orders involving senior IAS officers, including that of Dr. B. Ashok, who currently serves as the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary. The bench ordered that these officers be restored to their previous positions if the 2014 rules were not followed during their shifting.


    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Kerala Excise Commissioner post should be filled with IAS officer: CAT” (March 6, 2026)
    • The New Indian Express: “CAT: Kerala Excise commissioner post only for IAS officers” (March 7, 2026)
    • Onmanorama: “CAT censures govt for appointing IPS officers as excise commissioners” (March 6, 2026)
    • Kerala Kaumudi: “Setback for govt; CAT intervenes in transfer of IAS officers” (March 6, 2026)
    • The Hindu: “Non-IAS officers must not be posted in cadre posts, says CAT” (March 6, 2026)
  • Mumbai Accident: JJB Grants Bail to Teen After Father Released on Bond

    MUMBAI (Friday, March 6, 2026) — A Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has granted bail to a 17-year-old boy involved in a fatal car accident that occurred in February near Somaiya College in Vidyavihar. The decision comes just two days after a Mumbai Sessions Court granted bail to the teenager’s father, Valaji Raja Bhushan, a 43-year-old businessman.


    Chronology of the Case

    The incident has drawn significant attention due to the high-profile nature of the “digital arrest” and reckless driving allegations.

    • February 5, 2026: A Kia Seltos SUV, allegedly driven by the minor at high speed, collided with a scooter. The rider, Dhrumil Patel (33), sustained critical injuries, while his wife Meenal was also seriously hurt.
    • February 15, 2026: Dhrumil Patel succumbed to his injuries after ten days on life support. Following his death, police upgraded the charges to Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
    • March 4, 2026: The Sessions Court granted bail to the father, noting that prima facie he had no knowledge that his son had taken the car keys from the building watchman on the night of the crash.
    • March 6, 2026: The JJB granted bail to the minor. While the detailed order is awaited, the teen had previously been granted temporary relief to appear for his Class 12 board exams.

    Legal Arguments and Contention

    The bail was fiercely opposed by the victim’s family, represented by advocate Ruben Mascarenhas.

    • Social Media Evidence: The prosecution presented videos from the minor’s Instagram account showing him performing dangerous stunts, including driving a car while hanging out of the window. They argued this proved a pattern of reckless behavior known to the parents.
    • Settlement Allegations: During the hearings, claims surfaced that the accused’s family offered ₹40 lakh as “blood money” to settle the case, while the defense alleged the victim’s side had demanded ₹15 crore.
    • Next Legal Step: Advocate Mascarenhas has stated that the victim’s family intends to challenge the JJB’s bail order before the Bombay High Court.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Mumbai: JJB grants bail to teen in car accident case” (March 6, 2026)
    • The Times of India: “Mumbai crash row: Teen’s father gets bail; Rs 40 lakh offer claim surface in court” (March 5, 2026)
    • Hindustan Times: “Father gets bail in fatal Ghatkopar SUV crash; JJB follows suit for minor” (March 6, 2026)
    • NDTV Profit: “Mumbai Hit-and-Run Case: Teen Driver Gets Bail Citing Class 12 Board Exams” (February 16, 2026)
  • Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Sworn in as 55th Chief Justice of Madras High Court

    CHENNAI (Friday, March 6, 2026) — In a formal ceremony held at the Raj Bhavan (referred to locally as Lok Bhavan), Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Governor R.N. Ravi administered the oath of office, marking the start of his tenure as the 55th Chief Justice of this historic chartered High Court.


    The Swearing-In Ceremony

    The event was attended by high-ranking state officials and members of the legal fraternity, signifying a smooth transition of judicial leadership.

    • Key Attendees: Tamil Nadu Minister for Law S. Regupathy, Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam, and Advocate General P.S. Raman were present.
    • Succession: Justice Dharmadhikari succeeds Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, who retired on March 5, 2026.
    • Procedural Steps: Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam read out the Warrant of Appointment issued by President Droupadi Murmu, which was then handed over to the Chief Justice-designate before the oath was taken.

    Profile of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari

    Justice Dharmadhikari brings over three decades of legal and judicial experience to the Madras High Court, spanning civil, criminal, and constitutional domains.

    FeatureDetails
    Parent High CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
    Immediate Previous PostingJudge, Kerala High Court (since April 23, 2025)
    BornJuly 8, 1966, in Raipur, Chhattisgarh
    Career MilestoneServed as Standing Counsel for the Union of India (2000–2015)
    Judicial AppointmentAppointed Additional Judge of MP High Court in 2016; Permanent in 2018

    Career Highlights & Notable Experience

    • Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Early in his career, he practiced under Senior Advocate Y.S. Dharmadhikari and represented the Welfare Commissioner for victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
    • Government Representation: Represented key institutions including the Income Tax Department, Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and Central Excise as Senior Standing Counsel.
    • Cultural Adaptability: During his farewell at the Kerala High Court on March 5, he noted that his tenure in the South served as a “vital bridge,” helping him adapt from the traditional legal atmosphere of Madhya Pradesh to the rights-conscious legal landscape of South India.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari sworn in as Chief Justice of Madras HC” (March 6, 2026)
    • Bar and Bench: “Justice SA Dharmadhikari sworn in as Chief Justice of Madras High Court” (March 6, 2026)
    • The Hindu: “Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari sworn in as 55th Chief Justice of Madras High Court” (March 6, 2026)
    • Live Law: “Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadikari Bids Farewell To Kerala High Court” (March 5, 2026)
    • Official Notification: Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India (March 5, 2026)
  • Kerala HC: “Difficult to Prove Intention” in Antony Raju Evidence Tampering Case

    KOCHI (Friday, March 6, 2026) — The Kerala High Court on Friday made significant oral observations while hearing a plea by former State Transport Minister Antony Raju, questioning the feasibility of proving “criminal intention” in a 36-year-old evidence tampering case. Justice C. Jayachandran, while considering Raju’s petition to stay his conviction, noted that the accused was a junior lawyer at the time and questioned how specific motive could be attributed to him without a “special interest” in the client.


    Key Judicial Observations

    The hearing focused on whether Raju, as a junior advocate in 1990, could be held criminally liable for the alleged swapping of a crucial piece of evidence—a pair of underwear—in a narcotics case involving an Australian national.

    • Junior vs. Senior Responsibility: The court asked whether the senior lawyer in the case was aware of the tampering. It remarked that unless the prosecution proves a “special connection” or “special knowledge,” it is difficult to fasten mens rea (guilty mind) on a junior merely assisting his senior.
    • Circumstantial Evidence: Justice Jayachandran observed that at best, the case rests on circumstantial evidence. “Just because he took and returned [the article], can it be said that he tampered with it?” the judge asked, noting the chain of evidence appeared incomplete.
    • The Intention Factor: The court highlighted that proving a lawyer had the specific intention to commit a “mischief” like evidence tampering—especially when acting as an officer of the court—requires more than just the physical act of handling the object.

    The Case Timeline: “The Underwear That Didn’t Fit”

    The case is one of Kerala’s most unusual legal sagas, spanning over three decades.

    YearEvent
    1990Australian national Andrew Salvatore Cervelli arrested with drugs hidden in his underwear.
    1991Cervelli acquitted by HC after the underwear produced in court was too small to fit him.
    1994FIR registered against Antony Raju (junior lawyer) and K.J. Jose (court clerk) for tampering.
    2024Supreme Court restores the case after years of technical delays.
    Jan 3, 2026Raju convicted and sentenced to 3 years; consequently disqualified as an MLA.
    Mar 6, 2026Kerala HC reserves verdict on his plea to stay the conviction.

    Political Stakes

    The outcome of this plea is critical for Raju’s political future.

    • Disqualification: Under the Representation of the People Act, his conviction has already led to his disqualification from the Kerala Assembly.
    • Election Eligibility: Raju is seeking a stay on the conviction itself (not just the sentence) to allow him to contest the upcoming 2026 Assembly elections.
    • State’s Opposition: The Kerala government has strongly opposed the stay, arguing that granting relief to a convicted legislator solely to contest an election would “undermine the integrity of the electoral process.”

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Difficult to prove Antony Raju had intention to tamper with evidence: Kerala HC” (March 6, 2026)
    • Live Law: “Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Ex-MLA Antony Raju’s Plea Against Conviction” (March 6, 2026)
    • Bar and Bench: “Difficult to prove charges against Antony Raju in underwear case: Kerala High Court” (March 6, 2026)
    • The Hindu: “Kerala HC questions intent in 35-year-old evidence tampering case” (March 6, 2026)
    • The Week: “Difficult to prove Antony Raju wanted to tamper with evidence: Kerala High Court” (March 6, 2026)
  • Srinagar Court Orders Framing of Charges Against Farooq Abdullah in JKCA Case

    SRINAGAR (Friday, March 6, 2026) — In a significant legal development for Jammu and Kashmir politics, a local court has directed the formal framing of charges against National Conference (NC) President and former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and others in the long-standing Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) money laundering and embezzlement case.


    The Court Order

    Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Srinagar, Tabasum, issued a five-page order earlier this week, setting the stage for the next phase of the trial.

    • Key Date: The matter has been listed for March 12, 2026, specifically for the framing of charges against the accused.
    • The “Approvers”: The court specifically noted the role of two individuals (identified as Accused No. 3 and No. 6) who have turned approvers (witnesses for the prosecution).
    • Contingency: The CJM clarified that if these approvers resile from their current stand during the recording of evidence, “appropriate orders shall follow.”

    Background: The JKCA ‘Scam’

    The case dates back to financial irregularities allegedly occurring between 2002 and 2011, during Farooq Abdullah’s tenure as the President of the JKCA.

    FeatureDetails
    AllegationSiphoning of funds (approx. ₹43 crore) provided by the BCCI for the development of cricket in J&K.
    Key AccusedFarooq Abdullah, Ahsan Ahmad Mirza (former Treasurer), and Mir Manzoor Gazanffer.
    Investigating AgenciesInitially probed by the CBI (following a 2015 High Court order) and subsequently by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
    Previous ActionThe ED has already attached assets worth nearly ₹12 crore belonging to Abdullah in connection with this case.

    Political Implications

    Farooq Abdullah and the National Conference have consistently denied the allegations, labeling the probe as “political vendetta” aimed at silencing the opposition in the Union Territory. The framing of charges signifies that the court has found prima facie evidence to proceed with a full trial, which could impact Abdullah’s ability to participate in upcoming electoral cycles depending on the trial’s speed and outcome.


    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Court orders framing charges against Farooq Abdullah, others in JKCA ‘scam’ case” (March 6, 2026)
    • Greater Kashmir: “Srinagar Court to frame charges against Farooq Abdullah in JKCA case on March 12” (March 6, 2026)
    • The Hindu: “JKCA Scam: Farooq Abdullah to face trial as Srinagar court orders framing of charges” (March 6, 2026)
    • Live Law: “CJM Srinagar directs framing of charges in JKCA embezzlement case involving Farooq Abdullah” (March 5, 2026)
    • Economic Times: “Farooq Abdullah JKCA Case: Court schedules charge framing for next week” (March 6, 2026)
  • Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Sworn in as 55th Chief Justice of Madras High Court

    CHENNAI (Friday, March 6, 2026) — In a formal ceremony held at the Lok Bhavan, Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Governor R.N. Ravi administered the oath of office, marking the beginning of Justice Dharmadhikari’s tenure as the 55th Chief Justice of one of India’s oldest and most prestigious high courts.


    The Swearing-In Ceremony

    The event was attended by high-ranking state officials and members of the legal fraternity, reflecting the significance of the constitutional appointment.

    • Key Attendees: Tamil Nadu Natural Resources Minister S. Regupathy and Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam led the delegation of state officials.
    • Judicial Presence: Several sitting judges of the Madras High Court and senior advocates were present to welcome the new Chief Justice.
    • The Mandate: Justice Dharmadhikari succeeds the previous incumbent, taking over the administrative and judicial leadership of the chartered High Court, which oversees both Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry.

    Profile of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari

    Before his elevation to the Madras High Court, Justice Dharmadhikari served as a senior judge at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where he was known for several landmark rulings concerning civil liberties and administrative law.

    FeatureDetails
    Previous PostingJudge, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench)
    Rank55th Chief Justice of Madras High Court
    Legal BackgroundExtensive experience in Constitutional, Civil, and Service matters.
    Appointing AuthorityPresident of India, following recommendation by the SC Collegium.

    Immediate Priorities for the Madras HC

    Legal experts suggest that Justice Dharmadhikari’s tenure will be marked by a focus on reducing the significant case pendency currently facing the Madras High Court and its Madurai Bench. Other expected focus areas include:

    1. Digital Transformation: Furthering the “paperless court” initiative and enhancing e-filing systems for advocates.
    2. Infrastructure: Overseeing the completion of several subordinate court complexes across Tamil Nadu.
    3. Filling Vacancies: Coordinating with the Collegium to fill the remaining sanctioned judge positions to reach full strength.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari sworn in as Chief Justice of Madras HC” (March 6, 2026)
    • The Hindu: “S.A. Dharmadhikari takes oath as Madras High Court Chief Justice” (March 6, 2026)
    • Bar and Bench: “Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari appointed as 55th Chief Justice of Madras High Court” (March 5, 2026)
    • Live Law: “Governor RN Ravi administers oath to Justice Dharmadhikari at Lok Bhavan” (March 6, 2026)
    • Tamil Nadu Government Gazette: Notification of Appointment (March 6, 2026)
  • Shopian HDFC Bank Fraud: Court Rejects Bail for Five Accused Officials

    SRINAGAR (Friday, March 6, 2026) — The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Jammu and Kashmir’s Shopian district has rejected the bail applications of five HDFC Bank officials implicated in a large-scale financial fraud. The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Crime Branch described the court’s decision as a “significant breakthrough” in the ongoing investigation into the Shopian branch unit.


    The Case: Embezzlement and Unauthorized Withdrawals

    The investigation (FIR No. 30/2025) began after several account holders filed complaints alleging that their funds were being withdrawn from the Shopian branch without their knowledge or consent.

    • Modus Operandi: While the full details are still under wraps, the Crime Branch spokesperson indicated that the accused allegedly manipulated internal banking systems to siphon off large sums of money.
    • The Arrests: The five officials were initially arrested on February 18, 2026, following raids across Shopian and Budgam districts.
    • Current Status: All five individuals are currently lodged in judicial custody at Central Jail, Srinagar.

    The Bail Hearing

    During the hearing on Friday, Additional Public Prosecutor Waseem Ahmad Shah, appearing for the EOW Kashmir, strongly opposed the bail pleas. He argued that the serious nature of the financial irregularities and the potential for the accused to influence witnesses or tamper with electronic evidence necessitated their continued detention.

    Accused OfficialResidence
    Adil Ayoub GanaiMemendar, Shopian (A/P Nowgam)
    Irfan Majeed ZargarSheikh Mohalla, Bonigam, Shopian
    Mubashir Hussain SheikhKarena, Kulgam
    Zaid ManzoorDagerpora, Khannabal, Anantnag
    Javaid Ahmad BhatBelow Rajpora, Pulwama

    Legal Charges

    The case has been registered under several stringent sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology (IT) Act:

    • BNS Sections: 316(5) (Criminal breach of trust), 318(4) (Cheating), 336(3) (Forgery), 340(2), and 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy).
    • IT Act Section: 66(C) (Identity theft and fraudulent use of electronic signatures).

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “J-K court rejects bail plea of five HDFC Bank officials in fraud case” (March 6, 2026)
    • Rising Kashmir: “CJM Shopian Rejects Bail of Five HDFC Bank Officials in Large-Scale Financial Fraud Case” (March 6, 2026)
    • Kashmir Observer: “5 HDFC Bank Staff Denied Bail in Shopian Financial Fraud Case” (March 6, 2026)
    • ETV Bharat: “HDFC Bank Fraud Case: Kashmir Court Rejects Bail For Five Officials” (March 6, 2026)
    • ANI News: “EOW J&K makes breakthrough in HDFC Bank fraud investigation” (March 6, 2026)
  • Thiruvananthapuram Court Sentences Tutor to 18 Years for Decades-Old Abuse

    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (Wednesday, March 4, 2026) — A Fast Track Special Court in Kerala has sentenced a 57-year-old man to a cumulative 18 years of rigorous imprisonment for the repeated sexual assault of a minor student. The case is notable for the 11-year delay in reporting, with the crime only coming to light in 2024 after the victim recognized the perpetrator while pursuing her medical studies.


    A Decade of Silence Broken

    The abuse occurred in 2013, when the accused was tutoring the victim, who was then a minor. Fearing social stigma and the influence of the tutor, the victim remained silent for over a decade.

    • The Trigger for Reporting: In 2024, the victim—now an MBBS student—encountered a man who bore a striking resemblance to her abuser. This encounter triggered a post-traumatic response, leading her to finally disclose the ordeal to her family and file a formal police complaint.
    • The Investigation: Despite the significant time gap, the Medical College Police successfully gathered corroborative evidence and witness testimonies that established a pattern of behavior by the accused.

    The Verdict

    Judge Anju Meera Birla of the Thiruvananthapuram Fast Track Special Court delivered the sentence on Tuesday. The 57-year-old convict was found guilty under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

    Charge TypeSentence Duration
    POCSO Act (Aggravated Assault)10 Years
    IPC Section 376 (Rape)7 Years
    IPC Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation)1 Year
    Total Cumulative Sentence18 Years

    The court also imposed a fine of ₹55,000 on the convict. If he fails to pay, he will face an additional one and a half years of imprisonment. The judge directed that the fine amount, if collected, be handed over to the survivor as compensation.

    Judicial Observations

    Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) R.S. Vijay Mohan noted that the court took a stern view of the breach of trust involved in a teacher-student relationship. The judgment emphasized that the psychological impact of such crimes does not diminish with time, and the delay in reporting does not invalidate the survivor’s testimony if it is found to be credible.


    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Kerala court sentences tutor to total 18 yrs imprisonment for sexual assault of student” (March 4, 2026)
    • Onmanorama: “11 years after abuse, MBBS student gets justice; tutor sentenced to 18 years in Kerala” (March 4, 2026)
    • The Hindu: “POCSO Court in Thiruvananthapuram sentences man to 18 years for assaulting minor” (March 5, 2026)
    • Mathrubhumi: “തിരുവനന്തപുരത്ത് ട്യൂഷൻ അധ്യാപകന് 18 വർഷം തടവ്; 11 വർഷത്തിന് ശേഷം വെളിപ്പെടുത്തി പെൺകുട്ടി” (March 4, 2026)
  • CESTAT Sets Aside ₹56.8 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against Rajinikanth

    CHENNAI (Wednesday, March 4, 2026) — The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled in favor of actor Rajinikanth, quashing a decade-old service tax demand of approximately ₹56.84 lakh. The tribunal clarified that renting a building for use as a hotel is specifically excluded from the definition of “taxable services” under the Finance Act, 1994.


    The Legal Dispute: Raghavendra Mandapam

    The case centered on the actor’s multi-storey building, Raghavendra Mandapam, located in Kodambakkam, Chennai.

    • The Lease: The property was leased to Vasantha Bhavan Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of running a hotel.
    • The Revenue’s Claim: Tax authorities argued that because the building included a restaurant, banquet hall, conference room, and health club, it was being used for “commercial purposes” and thus attracted service tax under the category of Renting of Immovable Property Service.
    • The Period: The demand spanned from June 2007 to June 2012.

    The Tribunal’s Ruling

    A division bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. rejected the Revenue Department’s attempt to “bifurcate” the property’s usage.

    • Integral Facilities: The bench observed that amenities like restaurants and conference halls are integral and incidental to a hotel’s operation. Their presence does not transform the building into a separate commercial entity for tax purposes.
    • Statutory Exclusion: The tribunal held that the premises fall squarely under the specific exclusion provided in Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, which exempts buildings used for accommodation, such as hotels and guest houses.
    • Consequential Relief: The court set aside the interest and penalties and ordered a refund of pre-deposits made by the actor during the appeal process.

    “The presence of facilities like a restaurant or banquet hall does not result in a bifurcation of the property’s use. These are intended to cater to the needs of hotel guests and enhance the hotel’s viability.” — CESTAT Chennai Bench


    Key Legal Precedents Cited

    The tribunal relied on established logic from the Supreme Court and previous coordinate benches:

    1. Legislative Intent: The primary goal of the law was not to tax immovable property when used for hotel businesses.
    2. Definition of “Hotel”: A hotel is not merely a collection of rooms but a service ecosystem that includes dining and event spaces as part of its core identity.

    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Building rented out to hotel by actor Rajinikanth excluded from taxable services” (March 4, 2026)
    • Bar and Bench: “CESTAT sets aside ₹56 lakh service tax demand against actor Rajinikanth” (March 5, 2026)
    • LiveLaw: “Actor Rajinikanth gets relief as CESTAT Chennai sets aside ₹56.84 lakh demand” (March 4, 2026)
    • Rediff News: “Relief for actor Rajinikanth in service tax case” (March 4, 2026)
    • Official Order: R. Rajinikanth v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Final Order No. 40317 & 40318/2026 (March 4, 2026)
  • Court Once Again Denies Bail to Purushottam Chavan in ₹24 Crore Fraud Case

    MUMBAI (Wednesday, March 4, 2026) — A Mumbai court has rejected a fresh bail application from Purushottam Chavan, the husband of Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Rashmi Karandikar, in a massive cheating case exceeding ₹24 crore. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhijit Solapure (Esplanade Court) ruled that there is substantial material on record linking Chavan to the crime, and his release could potentially hinder the investigation by influencing witnesses.


    The Allegations: Government Quota Fraud

    The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police arrested Chavan on May 20, 2025. He is accused of operating a sophisticated racket that defrauded at least 20 victims.

    • The Modus Operandi: Chavan allegedly portrayed himself as a government representative and promised victims premium flats and plots in Mumbai, Thane, and Pune at discounted rates under the “state government quota.”
    • Forged Documents: The prosecution contends that Chavan used his wife’s official residence above the Colaba police station to hold meetings, where he coerced victims into signing “agreements for sale” in the presence of associates posing as government officials.
    • The Amount: Victims were allegedly swindled out of approximately ₹24.78 crore. One Sion-based businessman alone reported a loss of ₹3.37 crore for a flat in Prabhadevi.

    Court’s Reasoning for Denial

    Despite Chavan’s defense team arguing that the filing of the chargesheet made continued custody unnecessary, the court held firm on several grounds:

    FactorCourt’s Observation
    EvidenceThe chargesheet and documents “crystallise the role of the accused” in the conspiracy.
    PMLA PrecedentThe court noted that a recent bail granted to him by the Bombay High Court in a separate ₹263-crore TDS fraud (PMLA case) was based on different factual aspects and was not applicable here.
    Medical GroundsChavan sought bail citing suicidal tendencies and blood pressure issues, but the court found these could be managed within the jail hospital system.
    Witness InfluenceThe court found merit in the prosecution’s fear that Chavan might use his influence to tamper with evidence or intimidate victims.

    The Broader Legal Battle

    Chavan is currently entangled in multiple high-stakes legal proceedings:

    1. ₹263 Crore TDS Scam: Investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), where he was granted bail by the High Court in December 2025 due to prolonged detention without trial.
    2. ₹7.42 Crore Garment Fraud: A separate EOW case involving fraudulent garment supply contracts.
    3. Asset Attachment: The EOW has already initiated proceedings to attach four luxury flats linked to him, allegedly purchased using the proceeds of these crimes.

    While Chavan remains in judicial custody for the real estate fraud, his wife, IPS officer Rashmi Karandikar, has previously stated to the media that she has filed for divorce and has no involvement in his business dealings.


    Sources

    • Press Trust of India (PTI): “Court denies bail to IPS officer’s husband in cheating case” (March 4, 2026)
    • The Times of India: “Maharashtra IPS officer’s husband Purushottam Chavan denied bail in multi-crore cheating case” (February 28, 2026)
    • Hindustan Times: “HC grants bail to four in ₹263-cr TDS fraud case” (December 27, 2025)
    • Indian Express: “Real estate fraud case: Bail application of IPS officer’s husband rejected” (October 18, 2025)
    • Free Press Journal: “EOW to attach four flats linked to accused husband of IPS officer” (November 6, 2025)