Nirav modi

A division bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Gauri Godse emphasised that it was a question of the ‘huge public money’ that is involved in the case. The court on Tuesday was hearing separate pleas filed by the PNB and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), both staking claims over Modi’s properties worth Rs 500 crore that are attached. Also Read The ED had also appealed against the Special PML Court order and claimed its rights even over the remaining nine properties, besides the 12 it was allowed to seize, since it was the probe agency in the case. Of the total 48 properties linked with Modi, the ED was allowed to attach 12 and PNB the remaining to dispose off the assets and recover its dues. The ED claimed in its plea that the bank, being a creditor, was not entitled to unsecured assets and the agency had the first right over the freehold properties. Countering, the PNB claimed its first right over the assets as it had extended the loans, which were defaulted and hit the bank adversely. The PNB also referred to an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal saying it had awarded some of Modi’s assets to the bank.

The court on Tuesday was hearing separate pleas filed by the PNB and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), both staking claims over Modi's properties worth Rs 500 crore that are attached. These appeals are made against the October 2022 order of the Special PMLA Court allowing the ED to confiscate 12 out of 21 properties, with the PNB objecting saying it has the right over those (12) assets since the bank was the creditor. The ED had also appealed against the Special PML Court order and claimed its rights even over the remaining nine properties, besides the 12 it was allowed to seize, since it was the probe agency in the case. Of the total 48 properties linked with Modi, the ED was allowed to attach 12 and PNB the remaining to dispose off the assets and recover its dues. The ED claimed in its plea that the bank, being a creditor, was not entitled to unsecured assets and the agency had the first right over the freehold properties. Countering, the PNB claimed its first right over the assets as it had extended the loans, which were defaulted and hit the bank adversely. The PNB also referred to an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal saying it had awarded some of Modi's assets to the bank. The high court has now asked the ED and PNB a fortnight to file their respective replies and posted the matter for further hearing after three weeks.

New Delhi: The Congress Wednesday launched an all-out attack on the Modi government over the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI’s) decision to allow ‘compromise settlements’ for wilful defaulters. Senior Congress MP Jairam Ramesh called it a “clean chit to all wilful defaulters and frauds who have run away with public money”, and demanded that the RBI repeal the decision. Attacking Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the RBI circular, Ramesh said in a statement, “The prime minister has always eagerly bent or changed rules to help his friends in a few large business groups.” He added, “The Modi government has now provided fraudsters and wilful defaulters such as Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi and Vijay Mallya a path to rehabilitation. While wealthy financiers of the BJP are given every undeserved convenience, honest Indians struggle to pay their loans. This reveals the true nature of this suit-boot-loot-jhoot sarkar.” On 8 June, the RBI released a framework for lenders to undertake technical write-offs and compromise settlements in the case of accounts categorised as ‘fraud’ or ‘wilful’ defaulters. In such a settlement , an arrangement is reached between the banks and borrowers, which may or may not include complete recovery of dues. After a 12-month cooling period , borrowers of non-farm credit can be lent money again, according to the RBI’s instructions. Jairam Ramesh Wednesday asked if the Modi government had pressurised the RBI to take this decision. â...

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is set to embark on a state visit to India this week and while free trade agreement negotiations and the response to the war in Ukraine are likely to dominate bilateral talks, the pending extraditions of fugitive businessmen Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi are likely to be raised by the Indian side. India had raised the issue in a virtual summit with the UK last year as well when Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted categorically that economic offenders should be sent back to face trial in India at the earliest. Here’s all you need to know about the cases against Who are Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi? Vijay Mallya: Once hailed as India’s version of British tycoon Richard Branson for his investments in a brewing and liquor company, an airline, a Formula One team and an Indian Premier League cricket club, Vijay Mallya ran into trouble when he failed to return millions in loans and left India in 2016 amid attempts by a group of banks to recover the money. The failure of Kingfisher Airlines, which he launched in 2005, began Mallya’s slippery slide into debt and triggered the collapse of several of his businesses. The Indian government in 2012 suspended the airline’s licence after it failed to pay pilots and engineers for months. Nirav Modi: The son of a diamond merchant, Nirav Modi built an international jewelry empire that stretched from India to New York and Hong Kong. Bollywood star Priyanka Chopra became the face of his eponymous brand and Hollyw...

Nirav Modi: Diamond tycoon wins permission to appeal against extradition to India on mental health grounds Indian diamond billionaire Nirav Modi, whose jewels were worn by the likes of Priyanka Chopra-Jonas, will be allowed to appeal against a previous ruling that said it was lawful to extradite him to India. One of India's richest men, whose jewels have been worn by the likes of Priyanka Chopra-Jonas and Kate Winslet, he has been held in HMP Wandsworth since 2019. On Monday, a High Court judge in London granted him permission to appeal against being sent back to his homeland. Mr Justice Chamberlain said Mr Modi had an "reasonably arguable" case after his lawyers told the court he was a high suicide risk and that Indian prisons would struggle to provide proper psychological care. Image: Security guards inside the Nirav Modi showroom in New Delhi in 2018 Lawyers said that because of his mental ill-health, extradition would be unjust and incompatible with his right not to face inhuman or degrading treatment. The COVID pandemic and its resurgence in India was also cited as a reason against the extradition. While the court approved the appeal on mental health grounds, it rejected the continuation of his appeal on other grounds, including that his extradition would breach his right to a fair trial. Permission to appeal against the Home Office's decision to order Mr Modi's extradition was also refused. Mr Modi was accused in 2018 by Punjab National Bank of being one of the main ...

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday, while hearing pleas by Punjab National Bank (PNB) and (ED) seeking claims over attached properties of fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi worth over Rs. 500 crore said that huge amounts are involved in the matter, which is ultimately public money while no steps are being taken by the bank. “Huge amount of money involved, and no steps taken by the bank. After all this is public money. What happens when a common man has to seek a loan?” the bench remarked. The PNB responded that the bank was not aware of the transactions or that the loans were unauthorised. A division bench of Justice Revati Mohire-Dere and Justice Gauri Godse heard pleas wherein the investigation agency challenged an order of a special court, which permitted the release of nine attached properties worth Rs 424 crore to the bank in the loan fraud case. While the investigation agency claimed it ought to get the right over the property, the PNB said they were entitled to custody since they were the creditors. The special court, designated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), in October, 2022 allowed the agency to confiscate 12 properties worth over Rs. 500 crores, except for the nine properties. The PNB was allowed to seize these assets. Weeks later in November, 2022 the court modified its order and entitled PNB to a few more assets. While the PNB claimed that they had right over the 12 properties as they were creditors, the ED said that they have a right over...