NEW YORK, Oct 22:
India-born US District Judge Amit Mehta will preside over the Justice Department’s crucial lawsuit against internet search giant Google.
Mehta was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on December 22, 2014 by former US president Barack Obama.
Born in Patan, Gujarat, Mehta received his BA in Political Science and Economics from Georgetown University in 1993 and his JD from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1997.
After law school, Mehta worked in a law firm in San Francisco before clerking for Susan Graber of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following his clerkship, Mehta worked at a Washington, DC-based law firm. In 2002, Mehta joined the District of Columbia Public Defender Service as a staff attorney.
Mehta served on the Board of Directors of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project and is the former co-chair of the District of Columbia Bar’s Criminal Law and Individual Rights Section Steering Committee. He is also a former Director of Facilitating Leadership in Youth, a non-profit organization dedicated to after-school activities and mentoring for at-risk youth, according to his profile on the website of US District Court, District of Columbia.
On Tuesday, the Department of Justice – along with 11 state Attorneys General – filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to stop Google from unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets and to remedy the competitive harms.
The participating state Attorneys General offices represent Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas.
“As one of the wealthiest companies on the planet with a market value of $1 trillion, Google is the monopoly gatekeeper to the internet for billions of users and countless advertisers worldwide. For years, Google has accounted for almost 90 percent of all search queries in the United States and has used anti-competitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising,” the Justice Department said.
A report in The Washington Post said, “absent a settlement, the outcome could rest in the hands of Amit Mehta, a federal judge in a Washington, D.C., district court. Appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, he was randomly selected Wednesday to hear the Google case.” (PTI)

NEW DELHI, Oct 22:
A contract of insurance is of “utmost good faith” and a proposer who seeks to obtain life insurance policy is duty bound to disclose all material facts bearing upon the issue, the Supreme Court has said.
The apex court said this while setting aside the March this year verdict of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had dismissed the plea of an insurance firm against the order asking it to pay full death claim along with interest to the mother of the deceased.
A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud noted that the proposal form requires a specific disclosure of pre-existing ailments, so as to enable the insurer to arrive at a considered decision based on the actuarial risk.
“A contract of insurance is one of utmost good faith. A proposer who seeks to obtain a policy of life insurance is duty bound to disclose all material facts bearing upon the issue as to whether the insurer would consider it appropriate to assume the risk which is proposed,” said the bench, also comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee.
The bench delivered its judgement on an appeal filed by insurance firm against the NCDRC’s verdict which had rejected its plea against the state’s CDRC order in the matter.
While setting aside the NCDRC’s order, the bench noted the proposer had failed to disclose that he was suffering from pre-existing illness and also about vomiting of blood which had taken place barely a month prior to the issuance of policy.
“The investigation by the insurer indicated that the assured was suffering from a pre-existing ailment, consequent upon alcohol abuse and that the facts which were in the knowledge of the proposer had not been disclosed,” it said.
“We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment of the NCDRC in the present case does not lay down the correct principle of law and would have to be set aside. We order accordingly,” it said.
The counsel appearing for the insurance firm informed the apex court that during the pendency of proceedings, the entire claim was paid over to the nominee, except the amount of cost.
“Having regard to the age of the respondent (mother of deceased), who is seventy years old and the death of the assured on whom she was likely to be dependent, we are of the view that it would be appropriate for this court to utilize its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, by directing that no recoveries of the amount which has been paid shall be made from the respondent,” it said.
In August 2014, a proposal for obtaining insurance policy was submitted by the man and the form contained questions pertaining to his health, medical history and required a specific disclosure on whether any ailment, hospitalization or treatment had been undergone by him.
The proposer had answered these queries in the negative, indicating that he had not undergone any medical treatment or hospitalization and was not suffering from any ailment.
Based on the information provided by the man, an insurance policy was issued. Later in September 2014, he died following which a claim was lodged.
During independent investigation, the hospital treatment records were obtained and it revealed that he had been suffering from Hepatitis C.
The insurance firm had repudiated the claim in May 2015 on account of non-disclosure of material facts.
The nominee had initiated a consumer compliant before the district consumer disputes redressal forum which had directed the insurance firm to pay full death claim together with interest.
The appeal against the order was rejected by the state consumer disputes redressal commission and later, the NCDRC also dismissed the plea of the insurance firm. (PTI)

MUMBAI, Oct 22:
Government-run premier flying training institute, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi (IGRUA) has inked an initial pact with Drone Destination to launch drone pilot training courses for aspirant professionals at the former’s Amethi campus in Uttar Pradesh.
Drone Destination is a sister-concern of the Delhi-based remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) manufacturing firm Hubblefly Technologies.
Under the memorandum of understanding (MoU), the institute will provide its state-of-the-art infrastructure and Drone Destination its domain expertise in training drone pilots at the campus.
IGRUA has always addressed the growing demand and the rapid technological transformation of the Indian aviation sector. As a part of its expansion program, it has partnered with Drone Destination to jointly launch drone pilot training courses, said a release today.
“This MoU enables both the organisations to provide the best drone training to aspiring drone professionals using IGRUA’s state of the art infrastructure and Drone Destination’s expertise in providing high quality, professional drone training,” said Krishnendu Gupta, Director, IGRUA.
Drone Destination aims to develop an integrated eco-system for RPAs right from manufacturing to training, services insurance, leasing and finance, as per the release.
The robust training programs will create responsible industry-ready drone pilots who maintain the highest levels of safety and security of the sky, said Chirag Sharma, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Drone Destination. (PTI)