Re: Indo-UK News & Discussions- June 2017
Posted: 14 Jul 2018 18:12
POTUS talking to SUN,,,,,,,,,that is amusing. It like modi is talking to some Mid-day tajakhaber type tabloids.
Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
Not quite.rsingh wrote:POTUS talking to SUN,,,,,,,,,that is amusing. It like modi is talking to some Mid-day tajakhaber type tabloids.
and Trump does know lots of people with big tits.Bart S wrote:To quote Yes Prime Minister "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, so long as she's got big t*ts"
[youtube]DGscoaUWW2M[youtube]
Yes, and knows them in a Biblical way. But Karma is catching up to him.chetak wrote:and Trump does know lots of people with big tits.Bart S wrote:To quote Yes Prime Minister "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, so long as she's got big t*ts"
[youtube]DGscoaUWW2M[youtube]
Sounds like the usual global warming alarmist BS.IndraD wrote:Sorry for OT ..
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -the-cause
from Finland to Canada Northen hemisphere is baking in unusual heat.
UK has faced abnormal heat wave with many counties in England asking residents not to water garden, with temp soaring above 33 C weather dept asked people in South East England to stay indoors.
Heat wave is Resulting in lower reservoirs, dried grass lands and parched jungles. Animals have died, wild fires are raging and human civilisation is struggling across countries!
The UK’s Court of Appeal has refused Vijay Mallya the permission to appeal against a High Court order in favour of 13 Indian banks to recover funds amounting to nearly 1.145 billion pounds, in another setback to the embattled liquor tycoon. The 62-year-old businessman, who is separately undergoing an extradition trial in a UK court over fraud and money laundering charges by Indian authorities, had sought permission to appeal against the High Court order dated May 8. In the ruling, Judge Andrew Henshaw had refused to overturn a worldwide order freezing Mallya’s assets and also denied permission to appeal, which left Mallya with the only option of turning to the Court of Appeal.
Judge Henshaw’s order marked the first recorded case of a judgment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in India being registered by the English High Court, setting a legal precedent. The Court of Appeal judges looked into Mallya’s application seeking permission to appeal and decided against it yesterday.
As a result of the High Court order, the Indian banks – State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Corporation bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co Pvt Ltd – have the right to enforce the Indian judgment against Mallya’s assets in England and Wales.
It looks like the jurisdiction, for the moment, includes only England & Wales. The Crown Territories like Isle of Man & Guernsey are not required to directly enforce the order. They are part of the Reciprocal Arrangement Agreements. See this https://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute- ... ts-abroad/.Suraj wrote: As a result of the High Court order, the Indian banks – State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Corporation bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co Pvt Ltd – have the right to enforce the Indian judgment against Mallya’s assets in England and Wales.
Also, mallaya has been barred from appealing this judgment. The right to appeal is not automatic under UK law.Shanmukh wrote:It looks like the jurisdiction, for the moment, includes only England & Wales. The Crown Territories like Isle of Man & Guernsey are not required to directly enforce the order. They are part of the Reciprocal Arrangement Agreements. See this https://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute- ... ts-abroad/.Suraj wrote: As a result of the High Court order, the Indian banks – State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Corporation bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co Pvt Ltd – have the right to enforce the Indian judgment against Mallya’s assets in England and Wales.
Consequently, the UK court's judgement may have to undergo another judicial review in Guernsey/Isle of Man. How simple or otherwise this process is, I do not know.
However, for Scotland, enforcing this order is probably simpler. It is part of the Brussels Regulation since the Brits have still not formally left the EU.
Suraj,Suraj wrote:Shanmukh, I’m not sure how the jurisdictional area of EWHC is relevant . It’s the banks themselves who appproached EWHC in order to win the ability to confiscate his properties within the jurisdiction of the court .
Mallya has already been served his summons . He is to present himself in FMLA court in Mumbai on August 27, failing which all his properties will be confiscated . He will also automatically lose both the ability to file a civil claim or defend himself against one. That’s in addition to the criminal fraud charges he faces .
chetak wrote:Also, mallaya has been barred from appealing this judgment. The right to appeal is not automatic under UK law.Shanmukh wrote:
It looks like the jurisdiction, for the moment, includes only England & Wales. The Crown Territories like Isle of Man & Guernsey are not required to directly enforce the order. They are part of the Reciprocal Arrangement Agreements. See this https://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute- ... ts-abroad/.
Consequently, the UK court's judgement may have to undergo another judicial review in Guernsey/Isle of Man. How simple or otherwise this process is, I do not know.
However, for Scotland, enforcing this order is probably simpler. It is part of the Brussels Regulation since the Brits have still not formally left the EU.
This shortens the process as well as speeds it up. This may be behind his eagerness to "return" to India and I am sure that the he will either get a comfortable hospital stay or maybe even house arrest.
"In the ruling, Judge Andrew Henshaw had refused to overturn a worldwide order freezing Mallya's assets and also denied permission to appeal, which left Mallya with the only option of turning to the Court of Appeal.
Judge Henshaw's order marked the first recorded case of a judgment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in India being registered by the English High Court, setting a legal precedent.
The Court of Appeal judges looked into Mallya's application seeking permission to appeal and decided against it yesterday.
"The English judicial system does not give parties an unfettered right to appeal. The right to appeal is restricted. A party can only appeal a decision of the first instance Court if the first instance Court or the Appellate Court gives the party permission to appeal," he explained.
"A party is granted permission to appeal only in cases where the appeal appears to have a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. Therefore, in majority of the cases permission is refused," he added.
The two lessons India’s crony capitalists should learn from just over four years of Modi rule are these: if your business fails, don’t expect to pay nothing for your mistakes. There is the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to recover your dues to the extent possible. The second lesson is starker: if you owe money, and you have good assets in India, don’t even think of fleeing. London will not come to your rescue. You will end up losing even more.
The case of Vijay Mallya is illustrative on this score. A few weeks back, he painted himself as a victim of the government’s desire to make him the “poster boy of bank defaults.” But he had that coming for his arrogance in believing that no one will chase him all the way to London to bring him to justice. Or that the British courts will protect him no matter what his alleged crimes are. After Brexit, the British government can no longer act high and mighty and tell India your prisons stink or that the law is faulty.
The multi-pronged attack on Mallya by the Modi government – from launching extradition proceedings against him, to the successful bid by Indian banks to freeze his assets in the UK to recover their loan dues, to the passing of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act 2018 – have ensured that he has very little room for manoeuvre.
In May, 13 Indian banks succeeded in obtaining an order from the Commercial Court Queens Bench division in London for freezing his international assets by registering an order of an Indian Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for the same. This month, an appeals court refused him permission to challenge that order, saying his appeal had “no real prospect of success.” Mallya had claimed that a Bengaluru DRT’s orders on debt recovery could not be enforced in the UK.
Now, with the Enforcement Directorate using the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act to ask Indian courts to seize his assets in India, Mallya has only two options left: one is to defy any court order and brazen it out in the hope that his lawyers will manage to stretch the issue for as long as possible, and the other is to return to India and go to jail – possibly temporarily – and then seek bail while fighting his cases and debt recovery processes legally.
Mallya made a huge mistake in fleeing India when, in early 2016, he looked likely to face arrest over his loan defaults and alleged attempts to divert bank funds to other accounts. Faced with a huge political embarrassment back home, the Modi government pulled out all the stops to get him extradited from the UK, even while taking a hard line on his debts and illegalities. The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act became inevitable when two more businessmen – Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi – fled the country in the wake of the Punjab National bank fraud.
Under the Act, Indian agencies can move the relevant courts to seize the domestic assets of those running away from the law for alleged economic offences.
Thanks to his huge miscalculation that the long arm of Indian law will never get to him, Mallya now faces the real prospect of having both his global and domestic assets being seized. A Special Court that hears cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act issued a summons to Mallya asking him to appear before it by 27 August, or else face the consequences under the Fugitive Economic Offenders law.
PMLA court summons under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act for Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi also announced:
Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Mehul Choksi have been summoned by special PMLA court in Mumbai under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, failing which they could be declared fugitive economic offenders. The three businessmen are accused of bank fraud, have fled the country and are evading prosecution.
Vijay Mallya has been summoned by the PMLA court to appear before it on August 27, while Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi have been summoned on September 25 and 26 on the plea filed by Enforcement Directorate, which now has powers to confiscate their properties. The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill has been tailor-made to deal with cases like these.
“The bill gives biting teeth to the authorities by allowing them to confiscate properties of offenders, otherwise were easily escaping the legal process in India. The bill also significantly eases the process of attachment and confiscation of property which has been a long-drawn process under the existing laws,” S Vasudevan, Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys told FE Online.
One don't need to travel anywhere to get passport of another country. Embassy based in London can issue then. They can use this to fly out to other safe heaven.Suraj wrote:He does not have a travel document to exit UK, or else he’d have left by now, like Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi. What he has is an ILR, which can be in an expired or invalidated passport , but ILR is a residence permit and not a travel document .
he will be reporting serious health issues and a need for extended hospital stay in 3...2...1...chetak wrote: This shortens the process as well as speeds it up. This may be behind his eagerness to "return" to India and I am sure that the he will either get a comfortable hospital stay or maybe even house arrest.
Your arguments need to line up with the facts of reality . Particularly, it needs to pass the ‘if it were possible, he’d have already done it’ test , rather than simply come up with fanciful notions .ashish raval wrote:One don't need to travel anywhere to get passport of another country. Embassy based in London can issue then. They can use this to fly out to other safe heaven.Suraj wrote:He does not have a travel document to exit UK, or else he’d have left by now, like Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi. What he has is an ILR, which can be in an expired or invalidated passport , but ILR is a residence permit and not a travel document .
I also think that he and other figtives had enough time to disperse all their assets within their families such that they would not have much left as the assets in their name by now. This is where government needs to strengthen the offender's bill to get money gifted, transferred, bequeathed, trusted or inherited to their extended family members. Perhaps there are provisions in current bill but I don't know if that is the case.
Why don't you Google and confirm whether or not it is possible to get an Antiguan passport by simple clicking few buttons and having an agent who can confirm everything while one sits on his/ her yatch. I know this as a fact that it is possible. How do you even know he has not applied or don't have it. He may simply be waiting to noose to tighten and slip away like others did so far.Suraj wrote:Your arguments need to line up with the facts of reality . Particularly, it needs to pass the ‘if it were possible, he’d have already done it’ test , rather than simply come up with fanciful notions .ashish raval wrote: One don't need to travel anywhere to get passport of another country. Embassy based in London can issue then. They can use this to fly out to other safe heaven.
I also think that he and other figtives had enough time to disperse all their assets within their families such that they would not have much left as the assets in their name by now. This is where government needs to strengthen the offender's bill to get money gifted, transferred, bequeathed, trusted or inherited to their extended family members. Perhaps there are provisions in current bill but I don't know if that is the case.
In fact, what you’re arguing is what Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi are/were doing . They had a Singapore passport . Not anymore . And a Belgian passport . But can’t hide in Europe . And a St Kitts passport . But not there . And an Antigua passport . But the windies aren’t inclined to make enemies of us either .
Further, Mallya has already blustered that he can’t lose his house in UK because it’s in his family’s name. And yet he’s running around scared now . Maybe you should read the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act - it gives power to confiscate any private property where the culprit has an interest, not just what’s directly his by deed .
Mallya at least has the courage to brazen it out so far . Choksi and Modi are rats scurrying around. Singapore couldn’t protect them . Even an EU passport didn’t give them safety . Now they’re using outright ‘investor passports’ from tax haven Caribbean islands to hide there . They have no shame and will most likely miss their September summons and lose every last lunch tray and metal tumbler at home .
This is a dated report but it lays out the truth in a matter where the media and some "intellectuals" pilloried the Modi govt by deliberately misrepresenting facts which they were all very well aware of at the time.JE Menon wrote:If Rajan should become BoE Gov, wait for the collective orgasmic shriek from the female twatterati of India, not to mention seminal journalists - "Modi kicked him out unfairly, and now BoE has grabbed our superstar Rajan"...
Modi govt does not deserve the flak it got for Raghuram Rajan’s exit from RBI
The flak that the Modi government received for it’s treatment of Raghuram Rajan and Rakesh Mohan may have been unwarranted.
Jul 16, 2017
Karan Thapar
I hardly need to stress how much flak the government has received for its alleged treatment of Raghuram Rajan. The alleged ignoring of Rakesh Mohan didn’t receive the same level of attention but the cognoscenti were outspoken in their criticism. Well, it seems, on both counts the obloquy was unfair and wrong.
Most people consider me a critic or, at least, not a supporter of the Modi government. I wouldn’t quarrel with either description. However, I also see myself as an objective and balanced journalist who is duty bound to be fair. In a moment, you’ll understand why I have begun this way.
Two facts, which have come to my attention in recent days, could change the way the media and, indeed, the wider public have viewed the Modi government’s handling of the governorship of the Reserve Bank of India. The prevailing perception is that the government was unfair and ungrateful in denying Raghuram Rajan a second term. Some have even argued he was pushed out. There are also a few who criticised the government for not offering the job to Rakesh Mohan, a former deputy governor, who many thought was the best candidate available.
I hardly need to stress how much flak the government has received for its alleged treatment of Raghuram Rajan. The alleged ignoring of Rakesh Mohan didn’t receive the same level of attention but the cognoscenti were outspoken in their criticism. Well, it seems, on both counts the obloquy was unfair and wrong.
Unimpeachable sources have told me that Mr Rajan was offered a two-year extension. However, the problem was his inability to get a further extension of leave of absence from Chicago University without losing his valuable tenure. Mr Rajan could only stay on for eight additional months.
Quite understandably, the government decided this would be inadequate. It would only add to the uncertainty at the top of the Reserve Bank. It, therefore, opted to choose a new governor.
Seen in this light, it’s clear Mr Rajan was not badly treated and the criticism the government faced on this count was mistaken and unfair. Furthermore, these details were known to a few people but never fully reported, although they were clearly hinted at in an interview Mr Rajan gave the New York Times last September. As the paper put it: “He said that his departure was based on his inability to reach an agreement with the government on serving longer but not serving another full 3 year term.”
Let’s now come to Rakesh Mohan. I’ve very reliably learnt he was approached for the governorship and the government was extremely keen that he accept. Unfortunately, a personal and poignant problem prevented him from responding positively. It would be improper to go into further details but what I can confirm is that he requested the government not to be considered even though this meant a post he would have regarded as the culmination of his career had to be gracefully declined.
However, what I can add is that the government tried its best to find ways of enabling Mr Mohan to accept. Sadly, that wasn’t possible. So, once again, criticism that Mr Mohan was overlooked is both mistaken and unfair.
I’ve recounted these facts both because they reveal the government in a very different light to what many have so far assumed and because I was one of the many critics of its handling of Messrs Rajan and Mohan.
Today I’ve lightened my conscience by sharing these details. However, there’s a lot that this government has done and said that I remain critical of. There’s no U-turn in my overall attitude. But fairness requires I give the government its due. In these two instances its critics and opponents were wrong. I’m making no comment about anything else.