Unaware of crisis at firm; directors of IMA Jewellers
“MD asked us to go on Ramadan leave”
Bengaluru, Jun 13: Seven directors of city based IMA Jewellers, at the centre of an alleged financial fraud that left thousands in the lurch, indicated to police Thursday that they were unaware of the crisis and that the owner had asked them to take long leave for Ramzan.
They said Mohammed Mansoor Khan had convened a meeting with them a few days prior to his disappearance and discussed investments in various locations, police said
Before the unsuspecting employees and its sister companies could return to work, they got news of Khan's 'disappearance' and thousands of panic stricken people rushing to the IMA office at Shivajinagar here, demanding action against the owner and directors.
The directors were apprehended yesterday from different locations in the city.
Meanwhile police said they found a white colour SUV, reportedly belonging to Khan, near a home of one of the directors, which had been parked there for quite some time.
Acting on a complaint from residents, police took custody of the car, which bore a Puducherry registration number.
As complaints swelled to about 26,000 on the third day of the news breaking out, poignant stories surfaced from the victims of the ponzi scheme fraud.
Investors told PTI that the Ulemas and Moulavis of some mosques vouched for IMA Jewellers, saying their money would be safe and the investment was as per the Islamic guidelines.
Tears rolling down his eyes, Mohammad Nasir from Bengaluru told PTI that an Ulema from a mosque in his area insisted that he deposit money in the firm.
"I trusted him and deposited Rs 20 lakh in it... Today Mansoor has disappeared. I have two daughters to take care of.
I have the liability of their education and marriage. I dont know how I am going to meet their requirements," said Nasir.
Umiya Bi from Chittur in neighbouring Andhra Pradesh said she had invested close to Rs 10 lakh in the company.
The Karnataka government had yesterday announced the setting up of the 11-member SIT, days after Mohammed Mansoor Khan went absconding after allegedly threatening to commit suicide in an audio clip.
In the audio clip, which went viral on the social media, Khan purportedly said he was committing suicide as he was fed up with corruption.
He had also alleged the Shivajinagar Congress MLA Roshan Baig took Rs 400 crore from him and was not returning it.
Baig had however rubbished the charge, alleging that his political adversaries had orchestrated the "series of events" to tarnish his character.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Husband has to equally participate in household chores as he is not marrying a maid: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday said a husband has to equally participate in household chores like cooking, cleaning and washing as he is not marrying a maid but a life partner.
The observations came from a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta which was hearing a petition filed by a man challenging an order of the Karnataka High Court.
The high court had set aside a trial court order granting divorce to the man on the ground of cruelty.
During the hearing before the apex court, the counsel appearing for the man said the mediation between the parties had failed.
He said the marriage between the parties took place in May 2017 and since 2019, the couple is separated.
ALSO READ: Four held for throwing non-veg food leftovers near temple
"I (man) want a divorce. The trial court granted a divorce on the ground of cruelty," the counsel said.
The bench asked what the cruelty was as alleged in the matter.
The counsel appearing for the man said the woman had indulged in improper behaviour and was not cooking food.
"You have to equally participate in all these. Cooking, cleaning, washing, everything. Today's times are different," Justice Nath observed, adding the high court was right that it might not be a ground for cruelty.
"You are not marrying a maid. You are marrying a life partner," Justice Mehta observed.
The bench was told that both of them were working in a government school.
"Call both parties physically. We would like to speak to them," the bench said.
It posted the matter for hearing on April 27 and asked both parties to remain present before it.
