Heylink regisbola88: February 2026

Friday, February 27, 2026

Lunch, tariffs and trade: Piyush Goyal hosts US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in Delhi

US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick made a brief stopover in New Delhi on Thursday where he met Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal over lunch and discussed trade-related issues.

“Hosted US Secretary of Commerce Lutnick and US Ambassador Sergio Gor. Engaged in very fruitful discussions to expand our trade and economic partnership,” Goyal posted on X.

“A highly productive lunch. So many areas of cooperation for our two nations,” Gor said. Sources said there are no other official meetings scheduled for Lutnick in India. Beyond the social media posts, there was no official word from both sides on the discussions and the trade deal they have agreed to earlier this month.

It was the first meeting at the ministerial level on both sides after they agreed to a framework for a trade agreement and announced it through a joint statement on February 6.

In the deal the US had agreed to bring down extra tariffs on India to 18% from 50. In return India has shown intent to buy $ 500 billion worth of products from the US and provide greater market access in agriculture and industrial goods from America.

On February 20, the US Supreme Court invalidated country specific tariffs which led to postponement of negotiations that were to be held this week between both sides to finalise the legal text of the interim deal.

A delegation of Indian officials led by the chief negotiator was expected to be in Washington from February 23 to February 26.

The commerce ministry sources had said it was mutually decided to re-schedule the visit when each side has had the time to evaluate the latest developments and its implications.

Goyal had said on Tuesday that as soon as there is more clarity on the tariff front the trade talks will resume. After the interim agreement, India and the US would launch negotiations on a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA).

The US President Donald Trump had said nothing changes for India even after the Supreme Court judgement. To keep up the tariffs, the US has used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose 10% extra tariffs for 150 days on all imports to address the international payments problems. Now it is working on increasing these tariffs to 15%, the maximum allowed under the act for select countries “wherever appropriate”, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer had said on Wednesday.

Trump and other top officials have said that they would like to continue the use of tariffs implemented through “alternate tools” to bring down its trade deficit with the world. “Before the Supreme Court struck down tariffs most of these countries had agreed to have tariffs on them of 18%, 19%, 20%. So going up to 15% for them at least temporarily is better than the deal they had,” Jamieson had said in an interview.

This article was first uploaded on February twenty-six, twenty twenty-six, at twenty-six minutes past eight in the night.

HC passes strictures against JDA, slaps Rs 50,000 costs

JAMMU, Feb 26: In a scathing judgment exposing serious administrative lapses and institutional unfairness, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has strongly reprimanded the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) for auctioning land allegedly under encroachment, retaining a citizen’s money for more than 15 years without delivering possession and thereafter attempting to penalize the allottee for circumstances created entirely by the Authority’s own failure. Moreover, the High Court imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on JDA—Rs 25,000 for misleading the court, recoverable from the responsible officers after inquiry, and Rs 25,000 for unjustified retention of the petitioner’s money and prolonged delay.

The judgment by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal came in a petition filed by Changa Ram, a resident of Tehsil Marh, district Jammu, whose legal battle began after participating in a 2011 public auction conducted by JDA for land measuring 5.38 kanals at Chinore Chowk, Bantalab.
The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, offering Rs 41 lakh per kanal, taking the total bid value to more than Rs 2.20 crore. Acting upon the Letter of Intent issued by JDA, he deposited Rs 5 lakh as earnest money and subsequently paid Rs 20.50 lakh as the first installment.
However, the dispute began almost immediately when the petitioner visited the site and discovered that the land put to auction was not vacant as represented but was already under encroachment. According to the pleadings placed before the court, the land contained pucca structures, lanes and access gates, raising serious doubts about whether the Authority itself possessed the entire auctioned property.
The petitioner approached officials and sought removal of encroachments and re-measurement before paying the remaining amount, asserting that payment could not reasonably be demanded for land whose possession was uncertain.
The High Court noted that instead of resolving the issue, JDA issued a revised communication months later claiming that an earlier payment schedule contained an oversight and demanding substantially higher payments. The petitioner maintained that he could not be compelled to deposit crores of rupees for land that was admittedly encroached and not in the Authority’s possession. Despite repeated representations, inspections and assurances from officials, possession was never handed over, while the amount deposited by the bidder remained with JDA year after year.
Justice Nargal observed that official records and departmental notings revealed that encroachment issues were known within the Authority. Material placed before the High Court indicated that encroachments had been reported as early as 2008-09, well before the auction notice was issued. Measurement exercises conducted later acknowledged shortage of land and existence of permanent structures within the auctioned site. Even affidavits filed by senior JDA officials admitted absence of clear records showing whether the land was free from encumbrances at the time of auction.
Rejecting the Authority’s defence that the petitioner had defaulted in payment, the High Court held that once encroachment came to the bidder’s knowledge, he could not legally be compelled to deposit the remaining amount until the Authority discharged its obligation of delivering clear and vacant land. The judgment records that the petitioner promptly informed JDA about the encroachment in April 2011 itself, an assertion that was never specifically denied by the respondents.
Justice Nargal observed that the Authority had effectively auctioned an encroached plot, induced the petitioner to part with his hard-earned money, retained that amount for more than 15 years and then attempted to shift blame onto the allottee by invoking technical clauses relating to payment defaults and forfeiture. Such conduct, the High Court held, was impermissible for a Public Authority expected to function transparently and fairly.
The High Court made strong remarks on the role of JDA emphasizing that it functions as trustees of public resources and must ensure that land offered in public auction is free from encumbrances. A bidder, the High Court said, must be given full disclosure enabling an informed decision and concealment or failure to verify possession before auction amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.
Highlighting the prolonged hardship caused to the petitioner, the High Court remarked that JDA had placed itself in a “win-win situation” by neither allotting the land nor refunding the money, thereby unjustly enriching itself while the citizen remained deprived both of property and funds. The judgment noted that the petitioner’s money remained locked with the Authority since 2011, during which period he was denied both possession and the financial benefit of his investment.
The High Court also expressed concern over inconsistent stands taken by the Authority regarding the timing of encroachment. While one position suggested encroachment occurred later, departmental records acknowledged existence of permanent structures, leading the High Court to conclude that responsibility for the dispute squarely lay with the Authority.
Calling the case a clear example of administrative unfairness, the High Court held that forfeiture provisions could not be invoked mechanically where the alleged default was a direct consequence of the Authority’s own lapse. A public body, the judgment emphasized, cannot rely upon technicalities to defeat legitimate rights after accepting and retaining substantial consideration from a citizen.
After examining the entire record, the High Court allowed the petition and directed JDA to proceed with the allotment process by calculating the sale consideration strictly on the basis of rates prevailing at the time of the original allotment in 2011 rather than present market prices.
The Authority has been ordered to prepare detailed calculation sheets reflecting the amount payable for the available 5.01 kanals of encumbrance-free land and to allot equivalent land in the same vicinity in lieu of the portion affected by encroachment so that the petitioner receives the full extent originally auctioned.
The petitioner has been granted one month to deposit the balance amount once calculations are communicated, following which JDA must complete formalities and hand over possession of the land free from encumbrances within the stipulated time.
Taking serious note of misleading positions and prolonged inaction, the High Court imposed costs of Rs 50,000 upon JDA—Rs 25,000 for adopting contradictory stands before the court and another Rs 25,000 for unjustified retention of the petitioner’s money for over 15 years. The High Court directed that responsibility for misleading affidavits be fixed upon concerned officers after proper inquiry.
Advocate Himanshu Beotra appeared for the petitioner while as Advocates Sachin Dogra and Rahul Parihar appeared for the Jammu Development Authority.

India braces for unusually hot March; wheat, rapeseed crops at risk: Report

Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!

USER CONSENT

We at moneycontrol use cookies and other tracking technologies to assist you with navigation and determine your location. We also capture cookies to obtain your feedback, analyse your use of our products and services and provide content from third parties. By clicking on 'I Accept', you agree to the usage of cookies and other tracking technologies. For more details you can refer to our cookie policy.

*We collect cookies for the functioning of our website and to give you the best experience. This includes some essential cookies.

Cookies from third parties which may be used for personalization and determining your location. By clicking 'I Accept', you agree to the usage of cookies to enhance your personalized experience on our site. For more details you can refer to our cookie policy

*I agree to the updated privacy policy and I warrant that I am above 16 years of age

I agree to the processing of my personal data for the purpose of personalised recommendations on financial and similar products offered by MoneyControl

I agree personalized advertisements and any kind of remarketing/retargeting on other third party websites

I agree to receive direct marketing communications via Emails and SMS

Japan’s Births Fall for 10th Year Adding to Demographic Strain

Births in Japan fell for a 10th straight year in 2025, with the number of newborns dropping 2.1% to about 706,000, according to preliminary population data.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has proposed measures to counter the decline, including tax breaks for babysitters and household help, and corporate tax cuts for firms operating in-house childcare centers.

The Japanese government's attention to the birthrate issue has been questioned, with some arguing that it has been put on the back burner compared to other priorities, such as national security and policies on foreigners.

Births in Japan fell for a 10th straight year in 2025 underscoring the demographic strain Japan faces as Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi pursues new measures to counter the decline.

The number of newborns dropped 2.1% from a year earlier to about 706,000, the Labor Ministry reported Thursday in preliminary population data. Deaths fell 0.8% to roughly 1.6 million for the same period, the report said.

Ahead of the Liberal Democratic Party leadership race in October, Takaichi proposed tax breaks for babysitters and household help, and corporate tax cuts for firms operating in-house childcare centers. Japan’s first female premier has also pledged to introduce a national qualification for childcare workers and improve their pay and working conditions.

At the opening of the current parliamentary session last week, Takaichi said the government would ease costs tied to pregnancy and childbirth, including prenatal checkups and delivery, though none of these proposals has yet been implemented.

The preliminary tally is broad in scope, including babies born to foreign residents in Japan and Japanese nationals living overseas. The narrower finalized figure for 2024, which counts only Japanese nationals living in Japan, was about 686,000, the lowest since such records began in 1899. The final number is typically released in September.

Some argue that the government’s attention has shifted toward other priorities, such as national security and policies on foreigners, compared with previous administrations.

Former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in 2023 rolled out a ¥3.6 trillion ($23.1 billion) childcare package he billed as “unprecedented measures to tackle the falling birthrate,” a stance later continued by Shigeru Ishiba.

Under Takaichi, the child policy has been folded into a broader population agenda that also addresses foreigners.

Hitoshi Kikawada, the minister tasked with tackling the shrinking population, also oversees 11 other portfolios, including territorial disputes and food safety, raising questions about whether the birthrate issue has been put on the back burner.

Japan is not alone in trying to reverse demographic decline. In South Korea, data released Wednesday showed the fertility rate rose for a second straight year in 2025 as marriages recovered from a prolonged slump, supported by incentives aimed at easing childrearing costs.

US President Donald Trump has proposed a $5,000 baby bonus, while China plans to provide an annual 3,600 yuan ($500) allowance per child under age three.

Thursday, February 26, 2026

BJP Files Complaint Against Youth Congress Leader Over Obscene Post On PM Modi: ‘Insult To…’

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has filed a police complaint against Karnataka Youth Congress secretary Bindu Gowda over an objectionable and derogatory social media post targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

A complaint was lodged at the Malleswaram Police Station by the BJP’s social media wing, seeking legal action against the IYC Karnataka secretary.

The BJP said that an AI-generated semi-nude image of the Prime Minister was shared from a Facebook account named “Bindu Sira" on February 24. The party has alleged that the image linked the Prime Minister to the so-called “Epstein Files" and described the post as “indecent" and an insult to a constitutional office.

Karnataka BJP leaders have demanded that the state government take strict action and book the Congress functionary under relevant provisions related to hate speech and other offences.

The BJP termed the alleged post an attack not just on the Prime Minister personally but on the dignity of the constitutional position he holds.

This came amid ongoing controversy over Indian Youth Congress’s (IYC) “shirtless protest" inside Bharat Mandapam during the AI Impact Summit 2026.

What Happened In AI Summit?

India hosted the world’s largest artificial intelligence conclave, the AI Impact Summit-2026. The summit that began on February 16 has seen packed halls and long queues, as tech moguls, industry leaders, policymakers, founders, and technologists thronged the Bharat Mandapam.

Around 10 activists of the Congress’s youth wing had entered the AI Summit venue in New Delhi and staged a shirtless protest, raising slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the India-US trade deal. The protesters wore or carried white T-shirts printed with images of PM Modi and US President Donald Trump, along with slogans targeting the government.

The protest sparked a political row, with BJP leaders condemning it as “anti-national" and accusing the Congress of harming India’s global image, while the Congress defended the demonstration as legitimate democratic dissent reflecting youth anger.

Lok Sabha Speaker reconstitutes panel probing Justice Yashwant Varma

Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla on February 25 reconstituted the three-member committee formed to probe allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma.

The committee, originally constituted on August 12, 2025, comprised Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Senior Advocate B Vasudeva Acharya.

It will now include Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, in place of Justice Shrivastava, who is set to retire on March 6.

Pertinently, the Supreme Court recently rejected a plea by Justice Varma to quash the Speaker's decision to constitute the three-member committee.

Earlier this year, Justice Varma had told the three-member committee that he was not present at his official residence when the fire incident took place and that no cash was recovered from the premises by the fire brigade that arrived to douse the fire.

An in-house inquiry panel of three High Court judges constituted by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had earlier indicted Justice Varma and recommended his removal. The Central government then moved a motion in the Parliament to impeach the judge, who is presently posted at Allahabad High Court.

A judge cannot be removed without impeachment proceedings in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India states that a judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from his office without an order from the President.

The President can do so after each House of Parliament, by a majority of not less than two-third of the members present, supports the motion. Article 218 extends this clause to High Court judges as well.

Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1986, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, on receiving a valid impeachment notice against a judge, has to constitute a committee of judges and a jurist to probe the allegations.

The report of this committee is then required to be taken up for consideration in Parliament.

On August 07, the Supreme Court dismissed Justice Varma's plea against the in-house committee report and CJI Khanna's recommendation for his removal.

A fire at Justice Varma's house on the evening of March 14 had allegedly led to the recovery of unaccounted cash by the fire fighters.

Justice Varma and his wife were not in Delhi then and were traveling in Madhya Pradesh. Only his daughter and aged mother were at home when the fire broke out. A video later surfaced showing bundles of cash burning in the fire.

The incident led to allegations of corruption against Justice Varma, who denied the accusations and said that it appeared to be a conspiracy to frame him.

Justice Khanna then initiated an in-house probe into the allegations and set up the three-member committee on March 22 to conduct the inquiry.

The committee that probed Justice Varma comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman. The panel started the probe on March 25 and submitted its report to CJI Khanna on May 4.

The CJI on receiving the report of the in-house committee, asked Justice Varma to resign or face impeachment proceedings. However, since Justice Varma declined to quit, CJI Khanna forwarded the report and the judge's response on it to the President of India and the Prime Minister for removal of the judge. Following the allegations, Justice Varma was sent back to his parent High Court from the Delhi High Court. His judicial work has been taken away while further action is awaited.