High Court
Zeel’s audit firm Deloitte Haskins fined Rs 2 crore for gross negligence
MUMBAI: Audit firm Deliotte Haskins & Sells (DHS) has got a rap on its knuckles from the audit and accounting watchdog , the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA). It said that the former failed to meet relevant requirements of the standards of audit (SAs) and violated the Companies Act in respect of certain significant related party transactions concerning Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (Zeel) and promoter companies of Essel group chairman Subhash Chandra.
DHS, Zeel’s auditor then, did not disclose these doubtful transactions in Zeel’s financial statements. Hence NFRA has imposed a fine of Rs 2 crore on DHS and it also penalised two CAs employed by the audit firm Rs 10 lakh and five lakh each. It even banned them from practising as CAs for the next five years.
The NFRA order says that in September 2018, the Zeel chairman who is also the promoter of Essel group, issued a letter to Yes Bank, committing a Rs 200 crore fixed deposit of Zeel as a guarantee for the loans given by Yes Bank to a promoter group company Essel Green Mobility Ltd.
“The bank appropriated the fixed deposit (FD) in July 2019, towards settlement of loan amounts due from seven promoter group companies. Neither the creation and maintenance of FD nor its re appropriation by the Bank was with the approval of the board or shareholders of the company. The statutory auditors failed to identify and report this misrepresentation.”
“Our examination showed that the auditors were grossly negligent, failed to apply professional skepticism and due diligence, did not adequately challenge the management’s assertions, and failed to evaluate reporting of suspected fraud as required under Section 143(12) of the Act, which was evident from unauthorised guarantees/securities, premature closure of the FD by the Bank and unauthorised use of Zeel’s funds for settling the loan of the promoter group companies, with the knowledge of the chairman of the group and management of Zeel.”
High Court
Bombay HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
