Mumbai: The Wadala Truck Terminal Police have registered a case of culpable homicide against a man over the death of another man.

About The Case

Abdul Hamid Shaikh, 26, a housekeeping staffer at a private firm in Sion, was found unconscious on a footpath in Pratiksha Nagar on the night of August 22 and was declared dead before admission at Sion Hospital. The case was filed on the complaint of Hamid’s mother, Munirabegum Shaikh, a resident of Kokari Agar, MHADA Chawl, Wadala. His father, Shakur, works as a mathadi. Munirabegum is employed in catering.

Hamid was to travel with his father to their native village, Vevpuram in Tamil Nadu, on August 23. On the evening of August 22, he left home around 6.30pm, saying he was going for a walk, but never returned. Around 8pm, a neighbour, Saddam Hasan Sayyed, 19, informed Munirabegum that Hamid was lying unconscious near Gulmohar Building, Pratiksha Nagar Road.

He later told police that Hamid had quarrelled with the accused, Rahul Dhadavad. During the altercation, Rahul allegedly pushed him, causing Hamid to hit the back of a parked tempo and collapse face-first on the ground.

Mumbai: The Matunga police have registered a criminal case, following a court directive, against two firms operating in the solar energy and financial services sectors, Vikram Solar (VSL) and Vikram Capital Management Pvt Ltd (VCMPL), along with 11 of their directors. The accused have been charged with criminal conspiracy and fraud.

About The Case

According to the FIR, the complaint was filed by Nilang Navneet Shah, a 50-year-old businessman and director at Seklink Technologies and Realty Pvt Ltd, a Mumbai-based firm with global operations in technology and realty. Shah alleges that he was defrauded by the directors of the Vikram group of companies under the pretext of a solar module export deal to a US-based buyer, Kopia Power Devco.

The FIR names Vikram Solar Ltd and Vikram Capital Management Pvt Ltd, along with their directors Dnyanesh Chaudhary, Krishna Kumar Maskara, Vikram Swaroop, Probir Roy, Neha Agarwal, Ratnabali Kakkar, Subramani Krishnappa, Ewan Saha, Ulpi Gupta, Siddhnath Pradhan, and Parikshit Chiripal.

In January 2022, Shah was introduced to Dnyanesh Chaudhary through a mutual acquaintance at an office in Dadar East. Chaudhary is a director in both Vikram Solar Ltd and Vikram Capital Management Pvt Ltd. Subsequently, Shah was introduced to other directors of the two companies and multiple meetings were held regarding a proposed business collaboration.

According to the complaint, Chaudhary proposed a business model where Vikram Solar would supply solar photovoltaic modules, and Shah’s Seklink would help facilitate exports to overseas buyers like Kopia Power. The parties agreed on a tripartite agreement signed on January 4, 2023, promising Shah a 12% margin on the deal amounting to Rs 76 crore (approximately $9.6 million). In May 2022, Kopia reportedly issued a purchase order worth $131 million (approx. Rs 1,050 crore) to Vikram Solar and made a 20% advance payment of Rs 210 crore.

Shah claims this critical information was not shared with him, and that the Vikram companies allegedly manipulated the paperwork postdated to misappropriate the funds. As per Shah, Vikram Capital which was not originally part of the Kopia deal was wrongfully introduced as the distributor for the export, and Shah was misled into signing older, backdated agreements that enabled the Vikram group to misuse the Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC) issued for the export transaction.

Instead of using the SBLC funds for producing and exporting PV modules to the US buyer, the accused allegedly diverted the funds to bolster their bid under the Government of India’s Production Linked Incentive Scheme (PLI – Tranche II), for domestic solar manufacturing. When Shah demanded his 12% margin as agreed, he was promised payment via a postdated cheque. Krishna Kumar Maskara, a director at Vikram Solar, reportedly issued a cheque (No. 677119 dated November 4, 2023) as a guarantee.

However, the cheque bounced twice, once on November 7, 2023, and again on January 29, 2024, with the bank citing a “stop payment” instruction by the drawer. In a further twist, Vikram Solar later claimed the cheque had been lost or stolen, which Shah asserts is a blatant attempt to cover up the “fraud”. Shah, realising the extent of the alleged fraud, filed a written complaint with Matunga police station and moved the 30th Court in Kurla.

The court has since directed the police to register a criminal case. Following court orders, the Matunga police have registered a case under the Indian Penal Code Sections 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 417 (cheating), 418 (cheating with knowledge), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property)

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed two PILs challenging the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation’s (MSRDC) plan to allow private development on reclaimed land. 

A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne dismissed the PIL saying: “Both the PILs are dismissed.” A reasoned order will be made available later. 

About The PIL

PILs were filed by activist Zoru Bhathena and the Bandra Reclamation Area Volunteers Organisation (BRAVO), challenging the MSRDC’s plan to allow development by Adani. 

The BMC, MSRDC, MOEFCC and other authorities have opposed the plea contending that the plans were sanctioned after following due process of law. 

The BMC had filed an affidavit stating it granted sanction to Adani for the construction of a residential building on a 28-acre plot at the Bandra Reclamation as the site falls outside the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). The petition sought a stay on the project and restoration of the land as a green space, citing violations of CRZ norms.

BMC and MOEFCC contended that a report was prepared by the Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University, Chennai which concluded that the site is “fully outside CRZ as per approved Coastal Zone Management Plan.” The project site, namely sub-plot A and sub-plot B, whereupon residential development is proposed, falls outside the CRZ line, the BMC said while justifying sanctioning the construction plans.