Prakkash G Rohira, a real estate broker has filed a complaint against
Bollywood actress Ms Kangana Ranaut and her sister Rangoli in Mumbai’s Khar police station for not paying due brokerage on her bungalow.
She bought the bungalow in September 2017, at the cost of Rs 20.07 crore. The total area of the bungalow is 3,075 sq ft and the actor paid Rs 1.03 crore as stamp duty. In a statement actress’ team said that the brokerage of 1%, Rs 20 lakh, was paid as per industry standards but now the man is demanding 2% brokerage.
The actress said in a statement
“My finance team never dealt with him directly but now he is harassing us for Rs 22 lakhs more, he is claiming two percent of the transaction made from my end, which was never promised to him before or after the deal… So, this does not make sense and we have made it clear to the cops as well. We have all the evidence.”
Magistrate’s Order Directing FIR Against Kangana Ranaut for Tweets on Farmers Protest Quashed by Karnataka High Court
CelebStreet
Mar 30, 2021
Tanya Sehrawat
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
3 Shares
An order which was passed by a Magistrate in the State directing the police to register an FIR against Kangana Ranaut over controversial tweets on Farmers Protest was quashed by the Karnataka High Court on Thursday (March 25, 2021).The order was set aside by the Single Judge Bench of Justice HP Sandesh. He said that the Magistrate acted mechanically without properly examining if any offences were made out. Now the matter is remitted back to the Magistrate in order to consider it...
Karnataka HC issues Notice on Kangana Ranaut’s Plea to Quash FIR Over Tweets on Farmer Protests
CelebStreet
Mar 22, 2021
Tanya Sehrawat
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
3 Shares
A petition had been filed by Kangana Ranaut which sought quashing of an FIR registered over her tweets that compared farmers protesting against the farm laws to terrorists. On Friday (March 19, 2021), Karnataka High Court issued a notice on the same. While the case was being heard, Advocate Ramesh Naik L being the respondent in the petition appeared before the HC through video conference. He submitted neither being served the petition and nor the Interlocutory Appeal. He thereby requested...
Facebook Comments