Vijay Mallya granted bail after arrested in London

Agencies
October 3, 2017

London, Oct 3: Beleaguered liquor baron Vijay Mallya has been arrested in a second money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate, the UK's Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said today.

The 61-year-old flamboyant businessman, already out on bail on an extradition warrant executed by the Metropolitan Police earlier this year, will be appearing before Westminster Magistrates' Court in London this afternoon where he is expected to be bailed.

"Vijay Mallya has been arrested on money laundering charges and will be appearing in court today," a CPS spokesperson said.

The case is being probed by the ED and the central probe agency has already filed a charge sheet against him and others in a Mumbai court.

The CPS will be arguing the case against Mallya on behalf of the Indian government.
Chief Magistrate Emma Louise Arbuthnot has been hearing Mallya's extradition case at Westminster Magistrates' Court on his previous arrest warrant executed by Scotland Yard in April.

Mallya's trial in that case is scheduled for two weeks, starting December 4.
The embattled businessman, who has been based in the UK since he fled India in March last year, is wanted in India for his erstwhile Kingfisher Airlines' default on loans worth nearly Rs 9,000 crore.

It remains to be seen if both cases will be clubbed together, which may lead to a delay in the trial date.
Mallya had been arrested by Scotland Yard on an extradition warrant on behalf of Indian authorities on April 18. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 18,2020

Bengaluru, Apr 18: Amid fears that people from the unorganised sector are running out of cash to meet their daily expenses, the Karnataka government said there was no data available for such labourers, who can be provided financial assistance under the direct benefit transfer (DBT) scheme.

"The government does not have data of people in the unorganised sector such as drivers, farmers, domestic help and others. If we have to deposit directly into their account, we need data..," State Labour minister A Shivaram Hebbar told reporters.

The minister said a situation borne out of the COVID-19, where the entire nation has been lockdown was never anticipated.

To him, the pandemic has given an opportunity to gather information about the unorganised sector.

"This COVID-19 has taught the department and the workers a lesson that we should be prepared for a situation like this. We have learnt that all the information about labourers should be available with the labour department," Hebbar conceded.

The minister opined that the department should have had the list during the good times but nobody bothered to have it.

"During the good times nobody bothered about it -- neither they (beneficiaries) asked for it, nor we thought of it.," Hebbar said.

Now that the pandemic has struck, the government is focusing only on not letting anyone starve to death.

A three-level preparation has been made -- at the village level, Taluk level and the city level, the minister said.

Village anganwadis have been stuffed with food items to be cooked for the needy, whereas in Taluk level, government hostels have been turned into shelters for the labourers, he said, noting that lakhs of philanthropists in cities have come forward to feed the people from unorganised sector.

"The basic objective of our government is that no one should starve to death. The issue of organised or unorganised sector comes next," he explained.

On the fear of large-scale retrenchment, the minister said notices have been served on all the industries that no one should be expelled from the job.

However, Hebbar underlined that the industrialists today are as much in distress as the workers and his department was taking into account everyone's concern.

A decision will be taken in this connection by the government in the next two days, to provide assistance to small enterprises to keep them afloat.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 1,2020

May 1: India on Thursday called as "propaganda" certain social media posts from the Arab world alleging harassment of Muslims in several parts of the country in the name of containing the spread of coronavirus.

Strongly rebutting the charges, External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said the Gulf countries are deeply committed to friendly relations with India and they are even seeking bilateral talks on the post-COVID-19 economic recovery.

Talking about India's close and traditional ties with the Arab countries, he said New Delhi is ensuring uninterrupted supply of food and essential commodities to the region during Ramzan as part of its deep-rooted friendship.

Srivastava said the countries in the region do not support any interference in India's internal affairs.

"Much of what you see is propaganda by interested parties. Stray tweets can not be used to characterise our bilateral ties with these countries. The real picture of these relations is very much different," he said during an online media briefing.

There has been a wave of angry reactions on Twitter by leading citizens and rights activists from various Arab countries following allegations that Muslims are being blamed for spreading COVID-19 in several parts of India.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, a powerful bloc of 57 countries, recently accused India of "Islamophobia". India rejected the charges as regrettable.

"We have been making special efforts to ensure uninterrupted supply of food and essential commodities which are required during the Ramzan period in these countries, and this is something which has been greatly appreciated. These countries also want a priority discussion with India on the post-COVID-19 economic recovery," Srivastava said.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar have been in regular touch with their counterparts from the region in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

"In these discussions, there have been requests for sending medicines and medical teams to these countries. We already deployed a Rapid Response Team in Kuwait. There is also a request to send doctors and nurses from India," said Srivastava.

"What comes out clearly is that these countries are deeply committed to friendly relations with India. They also do not support any interference in internal matters of India. It is, therefore, important that the friendly and cooperative nature of our relations is accurately recognised and the misuse of social media is not given credence," he added.

Asked about reports of an order issued by Oman's Finance Ministry asking all state-owned companies to replace foreign workers with qualified local Omanis, Srivastava said it is not aimed at Indians working in the Gulf nation.

"The policy is a decades-old one and not specific to India. It does not target the Indians in any way," he said.

There have been apprehensions that the order will render thousands of Indians working in state-run firms in Oman jobless.

"They greatly value relationship with India. Government of Oman is taking special care of Indians which included free testing for coronavirus, its treatment, providing food," the MEA spokesperson said.

Oman government is also extending certain categories of visas of Indians.

Srivastava said India has been in touch with its friends and partners across the world as part of the collaborative approach to dealing with the pandemic.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.