Live
- Piyush Goyal files nomination from Mumbai North LS seat
- Strict action against drunk drivers - District SP Vaibhav Gaikwad Raghunath
- Samantha Ruth Prabhu and 'Laapataa Ladies' fame Nitanshi Goel Soar High on IMDb’s Popular Indian Celebrities List This Week
- India’s aluminium industry will need ~USD 29 billion CAPEX to go net-zero: CEEW
- Germany witnesses a growth of 32.6% visitors from India compared to previous year. Records 826703 overnight stays in 2023
- Crunchy, Crispy, Delicious: Savouring the Summer Fried Snacks of Telangana and Beyond
- Lifestyle launches Carrera Eyewear with Pat Cummins at its Begumpet store in Hyderabad
- Rashmi Group's Visionary Move: Unveiling the Future Growth Hub in Mumbai's Naigaon, Vasai, and Virar
- SC dismisses plea filed by former IPS officer Debasish Dhar challenging rejection of nomination
- Worldline ePayments India gets RBI approval to operate as payment aggregator
SC to hear Naidu's anticipatory bail plea in Fibernet case today
Chandrababu Naidu(File Photo)
The Supreme Court will hold a hearing on the petition filed by Chandrababu Naidu challenging the denial of anticipatory bail in the Fibernet scam by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The Supreme Court will hold a hearing on the petition filed by Chandrababu Naidu challenging the denial of anticipatory bail in the Fibernet scam by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The bench of Justice Bose and Trivedi will be presiding over the hearing.
Earlier, the bench had stated that it would conduct an inquiry into the Fibernet scam after delivering the verdict on Chandrababu Naidu's quash petition.
However, as the Supreme Court has not yet revealed its verdict on the applicability of Section 17A in Chandrababu Naidu's arrest, there is uncertainty regarding the inquiry into the Fibernet scam.
It may be recalled that The two-member bench of supreme court gave split verdict on former Chief Minister and TDP national president Chandrababu Naidu's quash petition in the skill development and refered it to three-member bench. While one of the judge said that the section 17 A of corruption act should have been followed another judge denied it.
