Rishi Kapoor, Bollywood’s original chocolate boy, dies at 67

Dubai, May 5: Tickets on repatriation flights from UAE to India, which start on May 7, could be costlier than regular airfare, and adding to the financial woes of those flying back. Nearly 200,000 Indians in the UAE have registered on the website seeking to return home.

“A one-way repatriation ticket to Delhi will cost approximately Dh1,400-Dh1,650 - this would earlier have cost between Dh600-Dh700 [during these months],” said Jamal Abdulnazar, CEO of Cozmo Travel. “A one-way repatriation flight ticket to Kerala would cost approximately Dh1,900-Dh2,300.”

This can be quite a burden, as a majority of those taking these flights have either lost their jobs or are sending back their families because of uncertainty on the work front. To now have to pay airfare that is nearly on par with those during peak summer months is quite a blow.

Sources said that officials in Indian diplomatic missions have already initiated calls to some expats, telling them about likely ticket fares and enquiring about their willingness to travel.

Although many believed repatriation would be government-sponsored, Indian authorities have clarified that customers would have to pay for the tickets themselves. Those who thought they were entitled to free repatriation might back out of travel plans for now.

Fact of life

But aviation and travel industry sources say higher rates cannot be escaped since social distancing norms have to be strictly enforced at all times. That would limit the number of passengers on each of these flights.

“One airline can carry only limited passengers - therefore, multiple airlines are likely to get the approval to operate repatriation flights,” said Abdulnazar. “Also, airports will have to maintain safe distance for passengers to queue up at immigration and security counters.

“Therefore, it is recommended that multiple carriers fly into multiple Indian airports for repatriation to be expedited.”

The Indian authorities, so far, have not taken the easy decision to get its private domestic airlines into the rescue act. Gulf News tried speaking to the leading players, but they declined to provide any official statements. So far, only Air India, the national airline, has been commissioned to operate the flights.

Air India finds itself in the driver's seat when it comes to operating India's repatriation flights. To date, there is no confirmation India's private airlines will be allowed to join in.

UAE carriers ready to help out

UAE’s Emirates airline, Etihad, flydubai and Air Arabia are likely to also operate repatriation flights to India after Air India implements the first phase of services.

“We are fully supporting governments and authorities across the flydubai network with their repatriation efforts, helping them to make arrangements for their citizens to return home,” said a flydubai spokesperson.

“We will announce repatriation flights as and when they are confirmed, recognising this is an evolving situation whilst the flight restrictions remain in place.”

An AirArabia spokesperson said the airline is ready to operate repatriation flights when the government tells them to.

Travel agencies likely to benefit

Apart from operating non-scheduled commercial flights, the Indian government is also deploying naval ships to bring expat Indians back. Sources claim the ships are to ferry passengers who cannot afford the repatriation airfares.

Even then, considering the sheer numbers who will want to get on the flights, travel agencies are likely to see a surge in bookings since airline websites alone may not cope with the demand set off in such a short span.

Learn from Gulf governments

In instances when they carried out their own repatriation flights, some GCC governments paid the ticket fares to fly in their citizens. Those citizens who did not have the ready funds could approach their diplomatic mission and aid would be given on a case-to-case basis.

Should Indians wait for normal services to resume?

Industry sources say that those Indians wanting to fly back and cannot afford the repatriation flights should wait for full services to resume once the COVID-19 pandemic settles.

But can those who lost their jobs or seen steep salary cuts stay on without adding to their costs? And is there any guarantee that when flight services resume, ticket rates would be lower than on the repatriation trips.

As such, normal travel is expected to pick up only after the repatriation exercise to several countries is completed. UAE-based travel agencies are not seeing any bookings for summer, which is traditionally the peak holiday season.

“Majority want to stay put unless full confidence is restored,” said Abdulnazar. “I expect full normalcy to be restored not until March 2021.

“People have also taken a hit to their income. Without disposable income, you will curtail your travel.”

What constitutes normalcy?

Airfares are expected to remain high, given the need to keep the middle seats empty to practise safe distance onboard.

“We expect holiday travel to resume by October or November - but, the travel sentiment will not go back to pre-COVID-19 levels anytime soon,” said Manvendra Roy, Vice-President – Commercial at holidayme, an online travel agency. “The need to keep the middle seat vacant will add 30-40 per cent pricing pressure per seat from an airline perspective.

“This will make holidays more expensive.”

As for business travel, it will take some time to recover. Corporate staff are now used to getting work done via conference calls. “Companies will also curtail their travel expenditure since their income has taken a hit,” said Abdulnazar.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea by Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

The court also said that alleged sufferings in prison can't be grounds to challenge the rejection of mercy petition.

The bench said all relevant material including judgments pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict.

The bench also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna rejected the contentions of the counsel appearing for Singh that entire materials of the case were not placed before the President when he was considering his mercy plea.

The bench, while referring to two files placed before it by the Centre on Tuesday, said that as per the January 15 covering letter which was sent by the Delhi government to the Ministry of Home Affairs, all relevant documents were sent.

The bench noted that detailed judgements of trial court, high court and the Supreme Court, curative petition filed by Singh, his past criminal history and his family background were sent to the Home Ministry by the Delhi government.

"All the documents were taken into consideration by the President while rejecting the mercy petition," the bench said.

The bench also dealt with submissions advanced by the convict's counsel, who had argued that the mercy plea was rejected at "lightning speed".

The bench said that if a mercy petition is expeditiously dealt with, it cannot be assumed that it has been adjudicated upon in a pre-conceived mind.

London, Feb 14: Liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya once again asked the Indian banks to take back 100 per cent of the principal amount owed to them at the end of his three-day British High Court appeal on Thursday against an extradition order to India.

The 64-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss, wanted in India on charges of fraud and money laundering amounting to an alleged Rs 9,000 crores in unpaid bank loans, said the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are fighting over the same assets and not treating him reasonably in the process.

“I request the banks with folded hands, take 100 per cent of your principal back, immediately,” he said outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

“The Enforcement Directorate attached the assets on the complaint by the banks that I was not paying them. I have not committed any offenses under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) that the Enforcement Directorate should suo moto attach my assets," he said.

"I am saying, please banks take your money. The ED is saying no, we have a claim over these assets. So, the ED on the one side and the banks on the other are fighting over the same assets,” he added.

Asked about heading back to India, he noted: “I should be where my family is, where my interests are.

"If the CBI and the ED are going to be reasonable, it’s a different story. What all they are doing to me for the last four years is totally unreasonable.”

Lord Justice Stephen Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing, the two-member bench presiding over the appeal, concluded hearing the arguments in the case and said they will be handing down their verdict at a later date after considering the oral as well as written submissions in the “very dense” case over the next few weeks.

On a day of heated arguments between Mallya’s barrister, Clare Montgomery, and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) counsel Mark Summers, arguing on behalf of the Indian government, both sides clashed over the prima facie case of fraud and deception against Mallya.

“We submit that he lied to get the loans, then did something with the money he wasn’t supposed to and then refused to give back the money. All this could be perceived by a jury as patently dishonest conduct,” said Summers.

“What they [Kingfisher Airlines] were saying [to the banks] about profitability going forward was knowingly wrong,” he said, as he took the High Court through evidence to counter Mallya’s lawyers’ claims that Westminster Magistrates Court Judge Emma Arbuthnot had fallen into error when she found a case to answer in the Indian courts against Mallya.

Mallya, who remains on bail on an extradition warrant, is not required to attend the hearings but has been in court to observe the proceedings since the three-day appeal opened on Tuesday. A key defence to disprove a prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation on his part has revolved around the fact that Kingfisher Airlines was the victim of economic misfortune alongside other Indian airlines.

However, the CPS has argued that “there is enough in the 32,000 pages of overall evidence to fulfil the [extradition] treaty obligations that there is a case to answer”. “There is not just a prima facie case but overwhelming evidence of dishonesty… and given the volume and depth of evidence the District Judge [Arbuthnot] had before her, the judgment is comprehensive and detailed with the odd error but nothing that impacts the prima facie case,” said Summers.

At the start of the appeal, Mallya’s counsel claimed Arbuthnot did not look at all of the evidence because if she had, she would not have fallen into the multiple errors that permeate her judgment. The High Court must establish if the magistrates’ court had in fact fallen short on a point of law in its verdict in favour of extradition.

Representatives from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as well as the Indian High Commission in London, have been present in court to take notes during the course of the appeal hearing.

Mallya had received permission to appeal against his extradition order signed off by former UK home secretary Sajid Javid last February only on one ground, which challenges the Indian government's prima facie case against him of fraudulent intentions in acquiring bank loans.

At the end of a year-long extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London in December 2018, Judge Arbuthnot had found “clear evidence of dispersal and misapplication of the loan funds” and accepted a prima facie case of fraud and a conspiracy to launder money against Mallya, as presented by the CPS on behalf of the Indian government.

Mallya remains on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April 2017 involving a bond worth 650,000 pounds and other restrictions on his travel while he contests that ruling.