Lucknow/ New Delhi: , Mar 31: Union Minister and Congress leader Beni Prasad Verma kicked up another controversy on Saturday by saying that the next general election will witness the “Samajwadi Party’s (SP) funeral procession”.
Verma’s comment comes close on the heels of his remarks linking SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav with terrorists.
Understandably, the SP was not amused and renewed its demand for Verma’s removal from the Union Cabinet, saying he had lost his “mental balance.”
Mar 11: In a bid to keep its flock together, the crisis-hit Madhya Pradesh Congress has decided to shift its 92 MLAs either to Jaipur or some other place.
The move comes after 22 Congress MLAs loyal to former Union minister Jyotiraditya Scindia resigned on Tuesday, pushing the 15-month-old Kamal Nath government to the brink of collapse.
"We are going to take our 92 MLAs and those supporting our Madhya Pradesh government to a hotel," a senior Congress leader said on Wednesday.
The legislators would be taken either to Jaipur or some other Congress-ruled state like Chhattisgarh, a party source said.
Apart from its own MLAs, the Congress is also keeping a close watch on four Independents who are supporting the party-led state government.
On Tuesday, 22 Congress MLAs from Madhya Pradesh resigned soon after Scindia quit the party.
The development reduced the Congress government in the state to minority.
The state Congress unit is now making all efforts to save the Kamal Nath-led government.
The BJP on Tuesday night shifted its MLAs to Manesar at Gurugram in Haryana, sources in the saffron party said.
The Congress, whose tally before the rebellion was 114, has a wafer-thin majority in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly whose current effective strength is 228.
It also has the support of four Independents, two BSP legislators and one SP MLA, but some of them are now likely to switch sides to the BJP.
The BJP has 107 seats in the state Assembly.
New Delhi, Jan 4: In more troubles for the former Finance Minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday questioned him for over six hours in its probe into the Air India aircraft deal case, first time since his release from Tihar jail almost a month ago.
A senior ED official told IANS, "We questioned Chidambaram for over six hours today in the ongoing probe into the Air India deal with Airbus."
According to financial probe agency officials, Air India had planned to buy over 111 aircraft from Airbus and Boeing during the erstwhile United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in 2009. This is the first time the ED has questioned the senior Congress leader in the Air India deal case.
The questioning of Chidambaram came for the first time since his release from the Tihar jail where he spent 106 days in connection with the INX Media money laundering case. He was released from Tihar on December 4 last year after he was granted bail by the Supreme Court. The former finance minister is also being investigated by the ED in a separate money-laundering cases of Aircel-Maxis deal.
An ED official said the contract to buy 43 aircraft from Airbus was finalised by a panel of ministers headed by Chidambaram in 2009. According to the ED, when the proposal to buy 43 aircraft from Airbus was sent to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), there was a condition that the aircraft manufacturer would have to build training facilities and MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul) centres at a cost of Rs 70,000 crore. But later, when the purchase order was placed, the clause was removed.
The name of another UPA minister, Praful Patel, had also come up in the alleged scam in a charge sheet filed by the ED against corporate lobbyist Deepak Talwar on March 30 last year. Talwar was arrested last year by the ED after he was deported from the UAE.
The ED is probing the Air India-Indian Airlines merger; purchase of 111 aircraft from Boeing and Airbus at Rs 70,000 crore; ceding profitable routes and schedules to private airlines, and opening of training institutes with foreign investment.
New Delhi Aug 6: In a new twist in the Vijay Mallya case, a certain document connected with the case in the Supreme Court has gone missing from the apex court files.
A bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Ashok Bhushan adjourned the hearing to August 20.
It was hearing the review plea filed by Mallya against a July 14, 2017 judgment wherein he was found guilty of contempt for not paying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks despite repeated directions, although he had transferred $40 million to his children.
The bench was looking for a reply on an intervention application, which it seemed has gone missing from the case papers.Parties involved in the case sought more time to file fresh copies.
On June 19, the Supreme Court sought explanation from its registry regarding Mallya's appeal against the May 2017 conviction in the contempt case for not repaying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks not listed for the last 3 years.
A bench comprising Justices Lalit and Bhushan had asked the Registry to furnish all the details including names of the officials who had dealt with the file concerning the Review Petition for last three years.
The bench said according to the record, placed before it, the review petition was not listed before the court for last three years. "Before we deal with the submissions raised in the Review Petition, we direct the Registry to explain why the Review Petition was not listed before the concerned Court for last three years," said the bench.In May 2017, the apex court held him guilty of contempt of court for transferring $40 million to his children, and ordered him to appear on July 10 to argue on the quantum of punishment.
The bench said let the explanation be furnished within two weeks. "The Review Petition shall, thereafter, be considered on merits," it added.In 2017, the apex court passed the order on a contempt petition against Mallya by a consortium of banks led by the SBI.
The banks claimed Mallya transferred $40 million from Daigeo to his children's accounts, and did not use this money to clear his debt. Banks cited this as violation of judicial orders.
Comments
Add new comment