• Associate Sponsor

Vijay Mallya FERA case: After 17 years, final arguments to begin

The now defunct Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) case was registered by the ED against Mallya.

Written by Kaunain Sheriff M | New Delhi | Updated: March 10, 2016 5:49 pm
Vijay Mallya Vijay Mallya

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has registered an alleged case of money laundering against Vijay Mallya in connection with the CBI’s (Central Bureau of Investigation) probe into an alleged default of a Rs 900-crore loan from IDBI bank, is likely to summon him to record his statements for a separate case that began 17 years ago. Back in 1999, the ED had summoned him four times in a foreign exchange violation case filed against Mallya, where he had failed to join the investigation in pursuance to the summons. A Delhi court on April 27 would now begin the final arguments in the case filed by ED to prosecute Mallya for allegedly ignoring the summons.

Keystrokes: Vijay Mallya

The now defunct Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) case was registered by the ED against Mallya. The agency had issued summons under Section 40 of the FERA, directing him to appear before the agency in relation to the investigation where it was alleged that Mallya had violated the FERA regulation in connection to a transaction with Flavio Briatore of Benetton Formula Ltd based in London. It was alleged that Mallya, as a chairman of United Breweries Ltd, had entered into an agreement on December 1, 1995, with the London-based company for advertisement of the “Kingfisher” brand name on racing cars during the Formula-1 World Championship for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998. The ED now adjudicated the present matter. In the connection with this probe, Mallya was issued summons by the ED to appear before it September 27, November 8, November 26 and December 21 in 1999. After he failed to appear, the agency then moved the court seeking to prosecute him for ignoring the summons under FERA.

Share This Article
Share
Related Article

The Delhi court, 17 years later, will now begin the final arguments in the case. In it, P Subramani, the then corporate vice-president of UB Group was summoned on July 5, 1999 along with the documents.

While recording his statement on July 30, 1999, Subramani had stated that only Mallya can explain the queries of the agency following which summons were issued to Mallya on September 27, 1999.

Service Tax dept plea before Bombay High Court

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has decided to hear an application filed by the Service Tax department against Vijay Mallya for recovery of dues from his defunct Kingfisher Airlines. They have also sought impounding of his passport. The plea was mentioned before Justice CV Bhadang, and stated that Mallya had admitted a default of Rs 32.68 crore besides the amounts not admitted.  ENS

For all the latest Business News, download Indian Express App

  1. M
    mumbai
    Mar 10, 2016 at 9:22 am
    These congis do not understand the difference between the patriot and anti national. Vijay Mallaiya is a patriot.
    (0)(0)
    Reply
    1. M
      Mohan
      Mar 10, 2016 at 8:33 am
      All the people in the system- politicians, babus, DRI, ED, Banks, RBI, media have all taken benefits and enjo Mallya's courtesies .. even for the next hundred years these agencies will be chasing his tail and there neither intent nor capability to bring these evaders and defaulters to book.
      (0)(0)
      Reply
      1. K
        KeepItHonest
        Mar 9, 2016 at 8:52 pm
        No room for businessmen to fail in socialist India
        (0)(0)
        Reply
        1. P
          Parth Garg
          Mar 10, 2016 at 8:52 am
          That is how our criminal justice moves. At snails pace.
          (0)(0)
          Reply
          1. V
            V S
            Mar 10, 2016 at 8:16 am
            The TOI should have verified the facts before publishing this story. A case registered before 17 years under FERA cannot be continued now as the time frame fixed for Government agencies/RBI etc for the completion of the cases in the courts I.E. two years from advent of FEMA is over long back.
            (0)(0)
            Reply
            1. Load More Comments