23 July 2021 4:29 AM GMT
Senior Advocate C V Nagesh told the Karnataka High Court on Thursday that Twitter Inc is an independent organization and it is totally different, while Twitter India is a different entity. Nagesh who is appearing for the Managing Director of Twitter Communications India Private Ltd Manish Maheshwari, who has challenged the section 41A of CrPC notice issued to him by the...
Senior Advocate C V Nagesh told the Karnataka High Court on Thursday that Twitter Inc is an independent organization and it is totally different, while Twitter India is a different entity.
Nagesh who is appearing for the Managing Director of Twitter Communications India Private Ltd Manish Maheshwari, who has challenged the section 41A of CrPC notice issued to him by the Uttar Pradesh police in the Ghaziabad assault video case, was asked by the court "Can we say Twitter Inc is the parent company of Twitter India? Or is it an independent entity."
In response he submitted that "We (Twitter India) have absolutely nothing to do with that company Twitter Inc." He added "Twitter USA does not hold even a single share in Twitter India. It is totally a different entity."
Advocate Prasanna Kumar appearing for the respondents replied by saying "My instructions are that 99 percent of shares of this company (Twitter India) is held by Twitter Inc. All the colleagues of the petitioner have been representing Twitter India as well as Twitter Inc, before the Central Government agencies even till this day."
To which the court observed "Board Of directors may authorizes anybody to represent the company." To which Prasanna said "Unless these two are connected with each other the Board of Directors of Twitter Inc would not have authorized Twitter India employees to represent it before the Central Government agencies."
Justice G Narendar on Thursday began dictating its order in the case and will continue on Friday. On June 24, the Court had restrained the Uttar Pradesh police from taking coercive action against Manish Maheshwari, pursuant to the notice issued to him under Section 41A CrPC in the Ghaziabad FIR.
The FIR was registered over the tweets made by few journalists and politicians about the incident of an elderly Muslim man getting assaulted near Ghaziabad. It was alleged in the FIR that fake news was shared on Twitter that the attack was communal in nature.
The FIR was in the backdrop of an elderly Muslim man's claim in a video that his beard was cut off, and he was forced to chant "Vande Mataram" and "Jai Shri Ram". However, later on, the Uttar Pradesh Police ruled out any "communal angle" and said that Sufi Abdul Samad, the elderly man, was attacked by six men, as they were unhappy over the tabeez (amulets) he had sold them. It mentions offences punishable under Sections 153 (provoking to cause riots), 153A (promoting enmity between religious groups), 295A (insulting religious beliefs), 505 (statements inducing public mischief) & 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.