Three days after she was first called for questioning, Rhea Chakraborty was arrested on Tuesday and remanded to 14 days’ judicial custody. Here’s everything you need to know about the case
Rachana Dubey (BOMBAY TIMES; September 9, 2020)

SECTIONS UNDER WHICH RHEA HAS BEEN CHARGED AND WHAT THEY MEAN

Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22, 27(a), 28 and 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

SECTION 8(C): This section deals with an array of narcotics-related offences. It refers to and prohibits a range of activities — producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, storing in a warehouse, use, consumption, import inter-state, export inter-state, import into India, export from India or tranship — pertaining to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes.

SECTION 20 AND 20(B): Section 20 deals with marijuana or cannabis offences. Under it, Section 20(b) talks about the punishment for production, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting among others. This could be imprisonment for 10-20 years with a fine up to Rs 2 lakh, depending on the quantity of the prohibited substance.

SECTION 22: This deals with punishments with regard to contravention (going against the law) in relation to psychotropic substances, including activities like manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, importing interstate, exports inter-state or using any psychotropic substance. Punishment can lead to rigorous imprisonment for six months to 20 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 2 lakh depending on the quantity of the prohibited drug.

SECTION 27(A): It deals with punishment for financing illicit trafficking and harbouring offenders. The punishment could go up to 20 years in jail and a fine up to Rs. 2 lakh

SECTION 28: This talks about the punishment for attempts to commit offences.

SECTION 29: This details the punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.

WHAT THE LEGAL EXPERTS SAY

CHARGES WILL BE DIFFICULT TO DEMONSTRATE, ESTABLISH AND PROVE
In the present case, there is nothing except statement/s of the co-accused, which have been recorded before a police officer and not before a magistrate. There is nothing to demonstrate that she (Rhea) was in possession of any drug, except circumstantial evidence. The sections alleged against her are about possession, transportation, financing illicit trafficking, etc. of banned substances. The NCB has pressed all the possible sections that they could, but it would be difficult for them to demonstrate, establish and prove it with evidence. As such, bail is possible in such matters.

– ADVOCATE DIPESH MEHTA

MANY FACTORS GOVERN IF AN OFFENCE IS BAILABLE
Everything boils down to what the allegation is against Rhea. Whether her offence is bailable or not, depends entirely on the details of the matter — the quantity of drugs found, consumed, transported, procured, stored, abetment for its procurement and so on.

– ADVOCATE SUDEEP PASBOLA

IF A CO-ACCUSED TURNS APPROVER, A LOT WILL DEPEND ON THE TESTIMONY
After applying these sections, agencies will have to investigate and establish that she was in possession and sold or purchased cannabis and other prohibited substances. We have to see the FIR and investigation details to know the substances mentioned. These sections do talk about some offences that are non-bailable in nature. Eventually, it will all depend on the confessions that will come into the picture. It’s a myth that you’re an offender only if you have been caught with the banned substance. You are an offender even if you had knowledge of an offence and you stayed mum and have committed the offence. In this case, there may be statements from the coaccused. If one of them turns approver, then she will have to further explain her role in the matter. A lot will also depend on the testimony of the approver.

– ADVOCATE HITESH JAIN

NO SUBSTANCE RECOVERED, CASE PROCEEDS ON WHATSAPP CHATS
There is an interesting aspect in the charges against Rhea. The offences under Section 28 of NDPS Act essentially deal with attempts to commit an offence as opposed to the rest of the sections, which deal with offences already allegedly committed. Obviously, an attempt to commit an offence cannot be alleged along with the commission of an offence. In simple words, either you make an attempt to commit an offence or you actually commit it — the two obviously don’t go together. Another feature of this episode is that in all probability, there has been no recovery of any narcotic substance and the case proceeds primarily on WhatsApp chats, which, even if proved on the anvil of testimony, cannot establish beyond doubt that the alleged narcotics were used, since there is no cogent proof of the existence of such narcotics, as alleged.

– ADVOCATE VIVEK VIDYARTHI

With inputs from: Neha Maheshwri

After producer claims distribution rights of Kedarnath rest with him, Abhishek Kapoor and Ronnie Screwvala decide to take him to court
Upala KBR (MID-DAY; June 30, 2018)

The ongoing tussle between team Kedarnath - director Abhishek Kapoor and producer Ronnie Screwvala —and Vashu Bhagnani over the film's rights refuses to end. In the light of Bhagnani's latest interview with a newspaper claiming that the all-India distribution rights of Kedarnath rest with him, Kapoor's production house, Guy In The Sky, and Screwvala's production house, RSVP, have sent a legal notice to Bhagnani and Prernaa Arora's KriArj Entertainment.

"The rights of Kedarnath are owned by Abhishek's Guy In The Sky and Ronnie's RSVP. In fact, the matter was also settled a few days ago, but Vashu's casual statement in the press has irked the makers," says a source.

Lawyer Hitesh Jain, who represents Kapoor and Screwvala, says, "Vashu Bhagnani and Pooja Entertainment have no agreement to claim any rights on Kedarnath. If he is claiming rights on the basis of an alleged understanding with KriArj, he should claim his money from them. As far as Kedarnath is concerned, Bhagnani has nothing to do with the film."

When contacted, Bhagnani said that he was in London when the notice was sent to him. "The first letter arrived on June 20, and my team missed it. I received the second letter on Thursday [June 28]. We have already submitted all documents in court because there is nothing to hide."

Arora remained unavailable for comment.

Swati Deshpande (THE TIMES OF INDIA; September 26, 2015)

Wadia, while agreeing to four conditions that say he distance himself from Zinta and break personal ties, refuses to tender 'unconditional apology' for his alleged behaviour.
Nazia Sayed & Divyesh Singh (MUMBAI MIRROR; September 5, 2014)

An attempt at striking a compromise between industrialist Ness Wadia and his one-time girlfriend, and business partner actress Preity Zinta has failed because of her insistence on Ness tendering an unconditional apology.

Police sources said the actress, issuing a communication to Ness's team through her lawyer, had placed five conditions that would induce her to withdraw the molestation complaint filed on June 12 against the Wadia scion.

According to sources familiar with negotiation proceedings, while the Wadia family favoured a compromise, Ness was insistent that he wouldn't offer an unconditional apology - he was amenable to the other four stipulations.

In her complaint registered at the Marine Lines police station, Preity had accused Ness of molesting her during an IPL game between Kings X1 Punjab and Chennai Super Kings on May 30. Preity had said that Ness not only "abused her using filthy language", but also "pushed and shoved" her around. Ness has denied the charges.

The four conditions Ness's team seemed willing to accept are:

1 Ness will not make attempts to be physically proximate with Preity

2 Ness will be barred from directly communicating with Preity in any manner; messages exchanged will be through officials of Kings XI Punjab, of which Preity and Ness are co-owners.

3 Preity will not receive monetary compensation for withdrawing the complaint.

4 Ness will not intrude upon any aspect of Preity's personal affairs.

Mumbai Police Commissioner Rakesh Maria was noncommittal about reconciliation proceedings. "We have nothing to do with it as police does not have powers to pass any such orders," he told Mumbai Mirror. "We are going ahead with our investigations. Police should not be made party to such things."

Officials from both camps too dismissed reports that any such attempt at a compromise was in progress. "These are just rumours and no such event has happened," said Preity's lawyer Hitesh Jain. A Wadia group spokesperson adopted a similar line: "It is just speculation," he told Mumbai Mirror.

Meanwhile, the Marine Lines police will file a charge sheet in the case as soon as they have recorded statements of witnesses from both sides. And they will have to arrest Ness before the charge sheet is filed. Sources said the cops have gathered enough evidence to establish a case of molestation against Ness, though four more witnesses listed by him testified before the investigators on Thursday, denying any altercations occurring between the two.

In a letter written to Maria on June 30, when she met him to seek permission to go abroad, Preity had detailed the physical abuse she suffered at Ness's hands. She had also said that she feared for her life.

Asira Tarannum (MID-DAY; May 12, 2014)

Suniel Shetty will be filing a defamation suit against Hemendra Singh Solanki, one of the producers of the film, Mumbai Kiski. Two producers had signed the actor for the film and later, each demanded that he return the signing amount.

As reported ‘Caught in the crossfire’ (hitlist, April 5), the actor was caught between the two producers. 
Following this, Solanki registered an FIR in Udaipur against Shetty alleging that he had cheated him and had made derogatory statements against him in the media. The actor will now fight these allegations by taking legal action against the producer.

Hitesh Jain, Shetty’s lawyer, says, “We will take legal action against the producer and get the criminal proceedings started soon. Celebrities are taken advantage of as they are considered to be soft targets.”

Jain points out that Shetty had approached the Cine & TV Artistes Association (CINTAA) to sort out the issue. “We would have followed the association’s verdict, but producer Hemendra Singh Solanki decided to go ahead and register an FIR. Now we will counter the same with a defamation suit,” he says.

A deal gone bad
Producers Anita Vimal and Hemendra Singh Solanki had approached Suniel Shetty to be a part of their project. But a week before the shoot, there was a fall out between the two partners, and Solanki sold the project to another production house. Later, both producers started harassing Shetty demanding that he return the signing amount to each of them.

Responding to Preity's claim that Shandar owed her Rs 2.8 crore, his sister says that the money was an investment in what the actress herself described as 'Kamal Amrohi Project'. 
Nazia Sayed & Sunil Baghel (MUMBAI MIRROR; January 29, 2014)

The Shandar Amrohi-Preity Zinta saga has taken a new turn with the former's sister in a sworn affidavit accusing Preity of misleading him and striking deals for redevelopment of family-owned Filmistan Studio behind his back.

In the affidavit filed at the Bombay High Court in response to Preity's claim that Shandar, who passed away in 2011, owed her Rs 2.8 crore, Rukhsar Amrohi has said that this money was, in fact, an investment made by Preity in what her own account books refer to as the 'Kamal Amrohi Project'. Nowhere in the books, however, it was elaborated what this 'project' was.

Rukhsar, who had a long-standing dispute with Shandar over the substantial properties their father filmmaker Kamal Amrohi left in the family, now shares their sole ownership with her brother Tajdar.

Describing Preity's motivation for growing close to her brother as malafide, Rukhsar has alleged that she was responsible for the rift in the family. "Preity not only influenced Shandar, but she also instigated him to go against siblings," she has said.

The affidavit adds that as per her father's will, Shandar, she, and Tajdar were bestowed only 'life interest' in the family's properties, which meant that they could only transfer the shares within the family during their lifetime. Thus, Rukhsar has argued, all her brothers' deals with various developers are illegal.

Rukhsar has also charged Preity with dealing independently with at least two developers in Shandar's absence in matters concerning his shareholding in the family assets.

While Preity has claimed that she paid lawyers involved in Shandar's various court cases, Rukhsar believes that the actress spent the money because of her interest in the 'Kamal Amrohi Project' and not as help to her brother.

"From the documents produced before this court, it can be derived that the plaintiff (Preity) was not helping Shandar Amrohi to fight any litigation but she herself was interested in the Kamal Amrohi Project," says the affidavit.

The affidavit adds that while Preity has attached bills raised by law firms representing Shandar, but these payments made by Preity are only with regards to those proceedings initiated by Shandar against Rukhsar and her son, whereas, he was fighting other cases too at the Company Law Board level for the sale of same shares.

Demanding a probe by Enforcement Directorate into the Rs 40-crore Shandar received from DB Realty, Rukhsar has said that it needs to be looked into why her brother received such a paltry amount a property whose market value is manifold more. "The Enforcement Directorate should find out whether any further amounts were received by the parties."

The affidavit claims that a large chunk of Rs 2 crore (Rs 1,54,15,000) that Preity claims she loaned to Shandar was paid through a certain Inder Mallick, who is a close associate of Preity and has nothing to do with Shandar or any other member of the family. "If this money was paid to Shandar, why did Preity not raise the issue for two years after his death," Rukhsar has asked.

When contacted, Rukhsar refused to comment. Preity's lawyer Hitesh Jain of ALMT Legal denied all allegations made in Rukhsar's affivadit. "We don't want to make any comment as of now as the matter is subjudice. But we will appropriately respond to this in the court."