British PM arrives on 3-day visit to Republic of India

[Hindustani78]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...extradition/story-rBeXTYW0XmKDVJ3anDJhgJ.html

Home ministry is meeting next week to discuss prison facilities in India after Vijay Mallya’s lawyers recently raised the issue to block the fugitive liquor baron’s extradition from the UK, where he has taken refuge.

The move comes after the external affairs ministry sought information from it on the facilities in the wake of Mallya’s defense counsels’ argument.

Home secretary Rajiv Gauba is likely to chair a meeting on November 13 to prepare its reply to the external affairs ministry’s request.

The development comes days ahead of the next case management hearing in Westminster Magistrate’s Court in London where the future course of 61-year-old Mallya’s extradition trial--scheduled to start on December 4-- will be discussed.

The next case management hearing is due on November 20.

Mallya is wanted in India on loan defaults amounting to about Rs. 9,000-crore.

“The MHA’s stance will be that the prison facilities in India are as good as any other place in the world. A prisoner’s legal rights are protected here, they are given accesses to medical facilities and their safety and security is protected by the authorities,” a senior home ministry official told HT on Friday.

The official viewed the argument put forward by Mallya’s lawyers in the UK court as an obvious effort to delay his extradition.

“In the past chief ministers and even corporate honchos have been lodged in the different prisons so what is so different about Mr Mallya?” the official asked.

The official said it would be “little pre-mature” to discuss in which prison Mallya would be lodged if he was extradited as the decision would lie entirely with the concerned Indian court where Mallya is being tried.

Given that his case is being looked at in a UK court as well, the MHA will be asked by a court here to give an undertaking that the human rights of the accused will be protected in the prison.

“The same will be then sent to lawyers of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the principal public prosecuting agency for conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales,” the official added.

Sources said the government is being extra careful about Mallya’s case owing to some past instances where the UK refused extradition requests because of prison conditions in India.

Another senior government official, requesting anonymity, confirmed that the meeting due to take place in MHA next week will discuss all issues related to Mallya’s extradition.

Two of India’s extradition requests were denied last month by UK after their defense lawyers argued the move would violate their client’s rights.

On October 16, a Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruled in favour of UK-based alleged bookie Sanjeev Kumar Chawla and also discharged a fraud case against a British Indian couple, Jatinder and Asha Rani Angurala.

In Chawla’s case, the ruling was based on human rights grounds over “severe conditions” in Tihar Jail.

In the other case the ruling was related to human rights but not pertaining to jail condition.

Other instances of extradition request being refused because of poor jail conditions in India include Purlia Arms drop case where Indian government had sought extradition of Kim Davy from Denmark.

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/642636/exiled-composer-nadeem-might-getting.html

Exiled composer Nadeem might be getting protection from Dawood
DH News Service, Mumbai, Nov 14 2017, 0:20 IST

In a shocking disclosure, music composer Nadeem Saifee, a suspect in the sensational murder of music baron Gulshan Kumar, is staying under the protection of Karachi-based underworld don Dawood Ibrahim.


TV news channels India Today and Aaj Tak, in an expose on Monday evening, aired phone call intercepts of Dawood Ibrahim with his aides that suggested that Nadeem was under protection.

Nadeem is staying in exile in the United Kingdom ever since he was named an accused in the Gulshan Kumar murder.

Gulshan Kumar, the founder of T-Series music brand and Super Cassettes Industries Ltd, was shot dead on August 12, 1997, outside a temple in Andheri.

The Indian government lost the case for Nadeem's extradition in a British court. The music director of Nadeem-Shravan fame had given several hits in the '90s.


The name of Abu Salem, then a lieutenant of Dawood, too figured. However, when he was extradited from Portugal, this case was not considered. It was said that Gulshan Kumar had a personal dispute with Nadeem and the former had also refused to pay extortion money to the D-company.


The intercepts that the two channels played had Dawood's voice, which was confirmed by police and intelligence sources.

In fact, the channels had decided to hand over the tapes to Thane police, which had recently arrested Iqbal Kaskar, the younger brother of Dawood Ibrahim, in a series of extortion cases.

The man who called Dawood used codes like "Ustad" and "London friend" – an apparent reference to Nadeem. The channels had accessed three calls between Dawood and his henchmen.

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...n-fugitives/story-puuHdVHGwIvYZnJJNKvyZP.html

Extradition requests from the govt for 121 wanted people are pending with 24 countries, of which the US, UK, UAE and Canada have become safe havens for 83
Updated: Nov 14, 2017 08:58 IST

Some 70% of 121 people who fled India and are being pursued for alleged crimes back home have taken shelter in four countries, the government has said, identifying those destinations as the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Canada.

According to data from the ministry of external affairs obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) query, India wants these people extradited or deported from 24 countries. The RTI response refused to provide information on when extradition and deportation requests were made in each of these cases.

Experts say that at the heart of the problem is a difference in legal principles and procedure, and they cite some instances where authorities in India may have even allegedly sabotaged efforts to protect fugitives.

The four countries named above, which were sent the bulk of the requests at 83, also have some of the most difficult extradition procedures, making it easier for fugitives.

“Go back in time to the Khalistanis, go back to the early movement of the Kashmiris, and go back to the Nagaland. The leadership has always been provided a safe haven in these countries,” said Ajay Sahni, counter-terrorism experts.

Sahni criticised the fact that the basis of state protection was the principle: One man’s terrorist could be another man’s freedom fighter.

Senior human rights lawyer Colin Gonsalves said pending requests do not mean the countries are soft on criminals.

“These countries want India to ensure fair trial, no torture during interrogation, humane prison conditions, and no death sentence. But India has failed to ensure all four points,” he said.

“It’s entirely because Indian police and investigating agencies have a bad reputation worldwide. Instead of improving the system, you blame others,” he said.

According to the website of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is the prosecuting agency in many of these cases, India has an extradition treaty with 18 of the 24 countries where its fugitives are hiding. The pending applications suggest the treaties may not be making it any easier to push appeals through.

Among the most prominent people sought by India from the US are David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur Rana, suspects in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Headley is serving a 35-year term and Rana a 14-year sentence after being convicted by American courts.

Ashok Chand, former additional commissioner of police (crime), who investigated cases such as the Red Fort attack in 2000 and the Parliament attack in 2001, said, “Lack of proper appreciation of facts or misplaced sympathy for fugitives by these countries are the main reason why the request to extradite them have remained pending till date.”

Sahni said in some cases India deliberately misrepresented the cases by not following proper procedures while in others, the evidence and evidentiary criteria don’t stand up to the requirement of the western court system.

 

[Hindustani78]

The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa receiving the memento from the Chief of the Air Staff, Royal Air Force UK, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen John Hillier, in New Delhi on November 15, 2017.

The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa in a meeting with the Chief of the Air Staff, Royal Air Force UK, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen John Hillier, in New Delhi on November 15, 2017.

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.thehindu.com/business/In...allyas-ubhl/article20470698.ece?homepage=true

The pending dues include the initial fine of ₹15 lakh and interest of ₹3.5 lakh and a recovery cost of ₹1,000.

Markets regulator SEBI has ordered attachment of bank accounts as well as share and mutual fund holdings of defaulter businessman Vijay Mallya-led United Breweries (Holding) Ltd. to recover dues totalling ₹18.5 lakh.

The decision has been taken after UBHL failed to pay the fine imposed on it. In 2015, the SEBI had levied a fine of ₹15 lakh on the company for disclosure lapses regarding creation and invocation of certain pledge transactions in shares of United Spirits.

The pending dues — totalling ₹18.5 lakh — include the initial fine of ₹15 lakh and interest of ₹3.5 lakh and a recovery cost of ₹1,000.

In an attachment notice dated November 13, the SEBI asked banks, depositories and mutual funds not to allow any debit from the accounts of UBHL. However, credits have been permitted.

Further, the SEBI has directed the banks to attach all accounts, including lockers, held by the defaulter.

“There is sufficient reason to believe that the defaulter may dispose of the amounts in the bank accounts and securities in the demat accounts held with your bank, depository, mutual fund, and realisation of amount due under the certificate would in consequence be delayed or obstructed,” the SEBI said.

Mr. Mallya held 7.91% stake in UBHL in his personal capacity as of December 2016 while the total promoter holding through various entities stands at 52.34%, according to the latest BSE data. He has been in the U.K. since he left India on March 2, 2016.

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...tion-hearing-set-to-begin/article21253856.ece

Liquor baron Vijay Mallya leaves after attending a case management hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court in London. File | Photo Credit: AP



He was arrested in London in April initially on fraud charges, with money laundering charges added subsequently. He has been on bail since then.

The much-awaited extradition hearing of liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya is set to kick off in central London on Monday. Over the next ten days, Chief Magistrate at Westminster Magistrate’s Court Emma Arbuthnot will hear the case presented by Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the Indian government, and the defence on which Mr. Mallya will hope to thwart efforts to return him to India to face prosecution.

Mr. Mallya was arrested in London in April this year initially on fraud charges, with money laundering charges added subsequently. He has been on bail since April.

A number of case management hearings have taken place since. Initial efforts by the defence to push the hearings into the New Year have proved unsuccessful, and despite the addition of new charges in October, the December date has remained firm, reflecting the eagerness of both sides now to bring the case to a conclusion.

Official cooperation
While just one Indian has been extradited from the U.K. in the last 24 years (Samirbhai Vinubhai Patel, wanted by India in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riots), with two extradition attempts refused in early November, there is a certain level of confidence on the Indian side, which has been pro-active in its approach. The Indian team has addressed some of the issues that often arise in such cases — an explanation of the prison conditions that Mr. Mallya could face were addressed in written material presented to the court ahead of the judge’s request for such evidence.

Regular engagement between Indian and British authorities both in New Delhi and London has also taken place, reflecting recognition on the British side of the seriousness with which the charges are being pursued by India.

However, with the matter now within the court system, the two sides have sought to emphasise that it no longer remains a matter between the two governments.

No date for verdict
The timing of a verdict on the case remains unclear. The court is yet to decide on a suggestion from the judge about whether written closing submissions — which Ms. Arbuthnot is known to prefer in cases she hears — would be filed in December at the end of the case or in January. The defence has objected to the suggestion, arguing that delaying it to January could be used by the prosecution to introduce fresh material — evidential or non evidential.

“Things have a habit of popping up,” Ms. Arbuthnot concurred, leaving the option open for when the written, closing arguments were to be submitted. The defence had also previously criticised the introduction of supplemental money laundering charges, which led to Mr. Mallya’s re-arrest, and re-release on bail in early October.

Mark Summers QC, a specialist in extradition law will lead the case for the prosecution, while Clare Montgomery QC will lead the defence. Witnesses set to appear include Margaret Sweeney, the chief accountant at Force India F1 Team, Dr. Humphreys, an aviation expert, Professor Lau, a legal expert, and Dr. Alan Mitchell, who has previously given evidence in other extradition cases on prison conditions in India.

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...isled-banks/story-pvuqqicF3kmkMxG7xYstNJ.html

Indian investigative officials were present in the Westminster magistrates court that is expected to hear the case over eight days.

Updated: Dec 04, 2017 21:38 IST
Hindustan Times, London

Vijay Mallya arrives at Westminster Magistrates Court in London on December 4.(REUTERS)

Controversial Indian businessman Vijay Mallya sat impassively in the dock in court on the first day of his extradition trial on Monday as the prosecution set out details of various loans sought from banks by his Kingfisher airlines.

Mark Summers, appearing for India through the Crown Prosecution Service, told magistrate Emma Arbuthnot that he would first set out the prima facie case against Mallya and how Indian banks were allegedly misled into giving the loans.

A large number of documents from banks were cited and quoted from in relation to loan applications amounting to Rs 2000 crore beginning October 1, 2009. Meetings of Mallya with banks chairmen were also mentioned.

The first session was devoted to setting out the chronology of bank loans. Summers said he would examine later in the day where the money went.

Most of the documents and loans mentioned were related to State Bank of India and IDBI. They included credit ratings, internal appraisals and Kingfisher’s business plans. In some loan applications Mallya gave personal guarantees.

Indian investigative officials were present in the Westminster magistrates court that is expected to hear the case over eight days. Mallya, who was arrested earlier this year, is likely to have his bail, ending on Monday, extended.

 

[Hindustani78]

The Mayor of London, Mr. Sadiq Khan meeting the Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs, Shri Arun Jaitley, in New Delhi on December 05, 2017.

The Mayor of London, Mr. Sadiq Khan meeting the Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs, Shri Arun Jaitley, in New Delhi on December 05, 2017.

December 05, 2017 15:07 IST
Updated: December 05, 2017 21:08 IST
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...-second-day/article21265790.ece?homepage=true

On Monday, the first day of the trial, the prosecution put forth arguments.

The hearing in the extradition trial of beleaguered businessman Vijaya Mallya continued for the second on Tuesday, with the opening arguments by the defence and a witness, aviation expert Dr. Humphreys, at the Westminster Magistrates Court in central London.

On Monday, the first day of the trial, the prosecution put forth arguments.

Here are the updates:

Dr. Humphreys testifies

“Setting up an airline anywhere is not easy... in India there are additional complexities” says aviation expert Dr. Humphreys.

'Politically motivated'

Ms. Montgomery attacks the prosecution’s ‘poverty of material’ and suggests that it’s politically motivated. The BJP, the Congress and the Shiv Sena, all treat this case as an ‘opportunity to make political capital.’ “The CBI has a long and inglorious history of being politically motivated in the prosecutions it brings.” “That may sound like hyperbole, but there is evidence that shows direct correlation between allegations of corruption and election years,” she says.

Defence chief rejects suggestions

Clare Montgomery QC lays out their defence against the three main planks of the government argument around misrepresentation, the use of the loans and conduct when they were recalled.

She rejects suggestions that Kingfisher and Mr. Mallya painted a wrongly optimistic picture of the future, citing the highly uncertain nature of the airline industry and highlights the belated decision by the government to open up the sector to foreign investment.

"There is no evidence for the government to support the case they advance. Could a reasonable jury reach a safe conclusion that this was a deliberate plan to go to IDBI Bank to raise the money and default on that loan... or was it a business failure?" she asks. "Is it possible for a jury to safely conclude that can be excluded? When this is the question you realise the government's case cannot succeed," she tells Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot.

Prosecution presents case

On Monday, the the prosecution, led by barrister Mark Summers QC outlined the Indian government's case against Mr. Mallya.

Their arguments were focused on alleged misrepresentations made by Mr. Mallya in loan applications made to IDBI Bank in 2009, the way the money was spent, which they argued was in contravention of the stipulated terms.

The prosecution also noted the way he attempted to squirrel the money away when the consortium of lender banks recalled the loans.

"These actions were not the actions of an honest person," Mr. Summers said, concluding they had outlined how they had shown there was a prima facie case to answer and that all remained to be discussed were over bars to extradition.

 

[Hindustani78]

F1 Force India team boss Vijay Mallya arrives for his extradition case at Westminster Magistrates Court in London Dec. 5, 2017. | Photo Credit: AP

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...ays-witness/article21291002.ece?homepage=true


Defence highlights State Bank of India reports on the financial health of Kingfisher Airlines

The second day of Vijay Mallya’s defence arguments against India’s attempts to secure his extradition continued on Thursday, as Paul Rex, a banking sector expert, who had previously testified for the State Bank of India in proceedings against the BCCI in the late 1990s, took the stand, building on the key theme of the defence: challenging the government’s narrative of fraud, by positing it being a case of business failure that followed consistent attempts to revive the business, and challenging the government case that the banks were deliberately misled.

During a lengthy and technical session, lead defence barrister Clare Montgomery sought to challenge different planks of the government case, including that Mr. Mallya sought the loans from the consortium of banks for his gain.

“On the premise that you have an equity stake in a company that is going to fail...is going and borrowing a large sum of money from the bank backed by your personal guarantee an efficient way of reducing your exposure to loss,” asked Ms. Montgomery. “It’s hard to see how that works under any circumstances,” Mr. Rex responded.

The defence then sought to challenge the arguments around misrepresentation, highlighting various reports from the State Bank of India on the financial health of Kingfisher Airlines. Describing the SBI as one of the most “reputable and competent” banks, he noted the influence its assessment was likely to have on others within the sector, and other banks pitching into a large loan.

Ms. Montgomery drew attention to sections of SBI reports, including those that highlighted the potential for the company going forward, despite its poor earnings, particularly centred around policy changes on foreign investment in the sector and importing aviation fuel, which could cut costs.

He concurred with Ms. Montgomery’s contention that even as late as February 2012, an SBI analysis – given to the RBI (which they argued highlighted its significance and gravitas) suggested the company was making “every effort” including the “infusion of substantial funds” to improve performance, under a situation in which it faced “severe constraints” including around policy.

He also noted the company’s market capitalisation, during the period under question, which remained high despite the company’s current earnings at the time.

“On the basis of the company’s earnings record and its balance sheet, in different circumstances one might have expected the market value would be close to zero but Kingfisher Airlines still had a significant market capitalisation,” he said and this suggested a certain expectation of earnings in the future. “They weren’t simply looking at it in a break-up basis, which they wouldn’t do if they thought the company had no future.”

The witness also dealt with the issue of brand valuation, which had arisen in the prosecution case as an instance of misrepresentation. Ms. Montgomery sought to portray a more complex picture of the role the brand valuation would have had in the loan sanctioning process, as well as the bank’s recognition of how brand value would vary dependent on profitability.

“Is there anything to suggest the acceptance of a brand value of 2,500 crore is an obviously fraudulent or misguided decision by the bank,” she asked Mr. Rex. “No I wouldn’t say so…it’s better to have a brand than not have the brand because you take all security that is available…but it’s not the same as saying you assume the brand will be worth X.”

Ms. Montgomery also criticised what she suggested was a change of tune by the prosecution, in its response documents, from overestimating to underestimating the value of his own personal guarantee. She also sought to challenge the government’s depiction of the role the personal guarantee played in the bank’s decision-making process: they ensured the guarantor (if a significant shareholder) didn’t walk away from the business but was not a panacea, said Mr. Rex. He also noted that such personal guarantees did not stop a person moving around or disposing of assets.

Ms. Montgomery also sought to question the decision by the consortium of banks in March and April 2016 to repay up to 80% of the ₹5,000 crore of liabilities. “It is likely to be seen as an attractive option,” Mr. Rex told the court, highlighting how with a loan in default for many years a bank was likely to have made provisions in terms of write downs, and was therefore likely to welcome such an offer and change to minimise losses.

Ms. Montgomery also sought to raise questions about whether political motivations may have been involved. “They tend to be more susceptible to political pressures,” Mr. Rex told the court when asked if it were possible to identify broad differences between State-owned and private sector banks.

The long-awaited extradition hearing commenced on Monday, as the prosecution led by barrister Mark Summers sought to establish a three-pronged case of fraud. Focussing on a loan made by IDBI as part of a ₹2,000 crore loan by a consortium of banks in 2009, it sought to highlight how he had made misrepresentations to secure that loan, had not used the money in the way stipulated, and that he had finally sought to squirrel away the funds. The case has focused on the original fraud charges rather than the money laundering charges subsequently added. The case continues at Westminster Magistrates Court until December 14.

*************

 

[Hindustani78]

LONDON:, December 11, 2017 20:25 IST
Updated: December 11, 2017 20:53 IST

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...a-commences/article21404796.ece?homepage=true


Legal expert Martin Lau raises questions on Indian SC verdicts, says judges close to retirement back executive line.

The third day of the defence arguments in India’s efforts to extradite Vijay Mallya from the United Kingdom commenced, as an Indian legal sector expert took to the stand to raise questions about the use of witness statements included in the government’s case and question the impartiality of India’s Supreme Court, while another witness, from Force India, questioned government arguments that certain payments made to the racing team were excessive and secretive.

Dr. Martin Lau, an expert on South Asian law, referred to a research report published by three academics that he said raised questions about “particular patterns or actions” in the verdicts of the Supreme Court. “I hold the Supreme Court of India in the highest respect…it does not mean the Supreme Court is a corrupt institution,” he said, pointing to the report that suggested a certain “patterns of decision making” that supported the “contention” that judges close to retirement were “angling for government posts” and made their decision in favour of the government.

“Pandering” in the form of actively ruling in favour of the government, was “positively associated” with the likelihood of judges being appointed to “prestigious” and “lucrative” jobs subsequently, lead defence barrister Clare Montgomery told the court, reading from the detailed study, cited by Mr. Lau in his evidence. Concurring, Mr. Lau noted that the study had not found any evidence that the seeking of government favour would result in a case being expedited – something that he pointed to in his evidence, when it came to the treatment of the banks’ case against Mr. Mallya. He contrasted the speed with which the proceedings against Mr. Mallya were moved to and through the “heavily burdened” Supreme Court, versus Mr. Mallya’s own review petition on the case.

‘Limited evidential value’

The picture of the decision making of the Supreme Court formed part of a wider body of testimony presented by Dr. Lau to the court, including on the use of Section 161 witness statement of the Indian criminal procedure code (in which a police officer summarises evidence heard) which, he said, had “limited evidential value.” He also noted the use of ‘exactly the same language’ in a number of statements. “Either we have the possibility they have both provided identical language or there is something else going on,” said Ms. Montgomery, after Mr. Lau compared two separate witness statements.

Ms. Montgomery also sought to discredit some of the other evidence presented by the CBI around a valuation of Kingfisher Airlines by Brand Finance, questioning why another higher figure hadn’t been mentioned by a police officer. She also cited a media report, highlighted in Mr. Lau’s written submission, suggesting “coercion” was involved in CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana’s approach in instigating the banks to commence criminal proceedings against Mr. Mallya.

The defence also sought to question the use anti-money laundering rules – amended in 2013 to remove the requirement that money laundering had to involve portraying dirty money as clean – in its case against Mr. Mallya, arguing that such application would involve “retrospection application.”

Earlier in the morning, Margaret Sweeney, the CFO of Force India gave evidence, by which Ms. Montgomery sought to question the premise that excessive payments were made by Mr. Mallya as a means of squirreling away money. “Just to deal with the suggestion made that Kingfisher Airlines money was taken for no good reason by Force 1 India and then used for some non Force 1 India purposes – is there any sign in your books?” asked Ms. Montgomery. “Absolutely not!,” said Ms. Sweeney, following a detailed examination of figures between 2008 and 2012. Ms. Montgomery indicated that rather than Force India being a “conduit” to give money to Mr. Mallya, it worked the other way around, where repayments were subsequently made to Kingfisher, following a request from Mr. Mallya after the company’s financial difficulties. Contrary to the suggestion that overpayments were made, Ms. Sweeney insisted that the sponsorship had provided strong value for money, with high levels of media coverage, and an ‘enormous platform to advertise” the Kingfisher brand.

*****
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...-against-mallya-commences/article21404796.ece
Legal expert points to ‘particular patterns’ in Supreme Court’s rulings that favour the government.

The third day of the defence arguments in India’s efforts to extradite Vijay Mallya from the United Kingdom commenced, as an Indian legal sector expert took to the stand to raise questions about the use of witness statements included in the government’s case and question the impartiality of India’s Supreme Court, while another witness, from Force India, questioned government arguments that certain payments made to the racing team were excessive and secretive.

Dr. Martin Lau, an expert on South Asian law, referred to a research report published by three academics that he said raised questions about “particular patterns or actions” in the verdicts of the Supreme Court. “I hold the Supreme Court of India in the highest respect…it does not mean the Supreme Court is a corrupt institution,” he said, pointing to the report that suggested a certain “patterns of decision making” that supported the “contention” that judges close to retirement were “angling for government posts” and made their decision in favour of the government.

“Pandering” in the form of actively ruling in favour of the government, was “positively associated” with the likelihood of judges being appointed to “prestigious” and “lucrative” jobs subsequently, lead defence barrister Clare Montgomery told the court, reading from the detailed study, cited by Mr. Lau in his evidence. Concurring, Mr. Lau noted that the study had not found any evidence that the seeking of government favour would result in a case being expedited – something that he pointed to in his evidence, when it came to the treatment of the banks’ case against Mr. Mallya. He contrasted the speed with which the proceedings against Mr. Mallya were moved to and through the “heavily burdened” Supreme Court, versus Mr. Mallya’s own review petition on the case.

‘Limited evidential value’

The picture of the decision making of the Supreme Court formed part of a wider body of testimony presented by Dr. Lau to the court, including on the use of Section 161 witness statement of the Indian criminal procedure code (in which a police officer summarises evidence heard) which, he said, had “limited evidential value.” He also noted the use of ‘exactly the same language’ in a number of statements. “Either we have the possibility they have both provided identical language or there is something else going on,” said Ms. Montgomery, after Mr. Lau compared two separate witness statements.

Ms. Montgomery also sought to discredit some of the other evidence presented by the CBI around a valuation of Kingfisher Airlines by Brand Finance, questioning why another higher figure hadn’t been mentioned by a police officer. She also cited a media report, highlighted in Mr. Lau’s written submission, suggesting “coercion” was involved in CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana’s approach in instigating the banks to commence criminal proceedings against Mr. Mallya.

The defence also sought to question the use anti-money laundering rules – amended in 2013 to remove the requirement that money laundering had to involve portraying dirty money as clean – in its case against Mr. Mallya, arguing that such application would involve “retrospection application.”

Earlier in the morning, Margaret Sweeney, the CFO of Force India gave evidence, by which Ms. Montgomery sought to question the premise that excessive payments were made by Mr. Mallya as a means of squirreling away money. “Just to deal with the suggestion made that Kingfisher Airlines money was taken for no good reason by Force 1 India and then used for some non Force 1 India purposes – is there any sign in your books?” asked Ms. Montgomery. “Absolutely not!,” said Ms. Sweeney, following a detailed examination of figures between 2008 and 2012. Ms. Montgomery indicated that rather than Force India being a “conduit” to give money to Mr. Mallya, it worked the other way around, where repayments were subsequently made to Kingfisher, following a request from Mr. Mallya after the company’s financial difficulties. Contrary to the suggestion that overpayments were made, Ms. Sweeney insisted that the sponsorship had provided strong value for money, with high levels of media coverage, and an ‘enormous platform to advertise” the Kingfisher brand.

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...p-arguments/article21518970.ece?homepage=true

London, December 12, 2017 19:48 IST
Updated: December 12, 2017 20:00 IST

Vijay Mallya arrives at Westminster Magistrates Court in London on December 12, 2017. | Photo Credit: AP


Discussion over CBI special director Rakesh Asthana’s appointment and role took place as he sat in the courtroom, giving yet another dramatic flourish to the hearing.
The fourth day of the defence arguments in India’s efforts to extradite Vijay Mallya from the U.K. was marked by intense exchanges over the picture portrayed of the CBI and its special director, Rakesh Asthana, as well as the Enforcement Directorate, by a London-based political economist, as the prosecution sought to discredit his interpretation of events including through the reliance of media reports, and the Supreme Court verdict on Mr. Asthana’s appointment. The discussion over Mr. Asthana’s appointment and role took place as he sat in the courtroom, giving yet another dramatic flourish to what has been a complex, and intense hearing, beginning December 4.

Following the December 11 session, where a legal expert sought to link the decision-making process of Supreme Court judges to future appointment prospects, one of the authors of the report wrote to the prosecution rejecting the “defence’s understanding of the paper”.

Lawrence Saez, a professor of the political economy of South Asia at SOAS testified about what he regarded as the politicisation of the controversy around Mr. Mallya by both main political parties and the Shiv Sena. He also highlighted criticisms and concerns expressed in India about the CBI and the way it pursued cases, as well as the appointment of Mr. Asthana, suggesting that his appointment by the Prime Minister was linked to his pursuance of this particular case. While Mr. Mallya’s political ideology was not the reason for the eagerness of the Congress and the BJP to both use the case for political ends, his “prominence” meant that both parties attempted to use the case, blaming each other. The BJP blamed Congress for the initial disbursement of loans, while Congress blamed the BJP for the waiver of loans and allowing Mr. Mallya to leave the country. He also argued that Mr. Mallya did not have “exceptional access” at highest political levels, highlighting his use of formal emails and written correspondence rather than direct phone calls to press his case as matters intensified. Prof. Saez said that ahead of the 2019 elections, the issue of Mr. Mallya would “continue to be used for political purposes”.

On the issue of the CBI and it being susceptible to political interference, Prof. Saez cited a number of studies including a Supreme Court reference to the CBI as a “caged parrot speaking in its masters voice”. This was “unfortunately” a perspective “widely acknowledged to be true”, in India, he said, adding that the CBI’s independence had fallen over the years. He also highlighted research conducted between 1988 and 2009 that looked at the correlation between election cycles and the number of corruption cases registered. He said the evidence pointed to the “politicisation of the allegations brought up in those corruption cases”. He highlighted recent developments in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in which a CBI officer testified that evidence from the person who supplied the battery used for the explosive had been deliberately left out, which he said highlighted a “serious breach of protocol”.

Then turning to the appointment of Mr. Asthana, he highlighted an NGO’s challenge to the appointment, which was finally rejected by the Supreme Court, and the decision to “move” R.K. Dutta out of the CBI, following the retirement of his predecessor, paving the way for Mr. Asthana’s appointment, as examples of the political nature of his appointment.

He also pointed to reports that the banks had complained to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) over “veiled threats” made to them in order to persuade them to lodge a First Information Report on the case, but that the PMO “refused to intervene”.

In an intense, counter-examination, the prosecution sought to cast doubt on the picture portrayed by Prof. Saez, with prosecution lead Mark Summers questioning his use or “regurgitation” of media reports, including with regard to the objections to Mr. Asthana’s appointment, and the media interpretation of the Central Vigilance Commission’s response to NGO concerns around Mr. Asthana’s appointment. He highlighted the Supreme Court decision which argued that media reports that no decision had been taken by the CVC to be “factually incorrect”.

“Do you regard it as part of the job to verify or investigate whether the press articles you rely upon are correct,” Mr. Summers asked Prof. Saez, arguing it was “dangerous to rely on press reports” for exclusive opinions. Mr. Summers pointed to a separate report by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions that described how the CBI had emerged as a “premier investigative agency” that had the “trust”, “credibility” and “legal mandate” of the people of India.

Prof. Saez highlighted his methodology and assessment of what he regarded as credible sources of information. “I do not believe all press reports are fake news,” he said, amid a discussion of one article that had suggested that Mr. Asthana had used coercion to persuade the banks to file a First Information Report against Mr. Mallya. “ I would believe the Indian press would not present evidence of the severity or seriousness of this case with made up information,” he insisted. India had a “free press” he insisted, which respected the British model of “fairness and impartiality”.

“The Indian press in a democracy can be trusted to provide some level of fairness that you’d not find in other countries,” Prof. Saez said, arguing that cases where one media outlet had got things wrong were swiftly highlighted by others, which had not been the case of the Asthana “coercion” story.

At the start of the session on December 12, Mr. Summers brought to the court’s attention what he described as an “unsolicited” email from Shubankar Dam, a professor of Public Law at Portsmouth University, and one of the three co-authors of the report on the Supreme Court’s decision-making process, cited by defence witness Martin Lau on December 11. Rejecting the defence’s interpretation of their findings, he insisted that it had no relevance to the Mallya case, and that they didn’t discuss the Indian legal sector as a whole and to position it as so was to “grossly misunderstand the analysis.” “We believe the Indian legal system is as fair and transparent as any legal system.”

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/chennai-six-case-takes-centre-stage-in-mallya-hearing/article21665460.ece?homepage=true

LONDON:, December 14, 2017 22:13 IST
Updated: December 14, 2017 22:15 IST

Snakes, rats, one meagre meal a day, and denial of medical treatment to a person diagnosed with cancer. These were some of the conditions in which the so-called Chennai 6 – a group of British men intercepted by the Indian coast guard in 2013 along with 29 other crew members and recently released - were kept in Puzhal Central Prison in Chennai, according to a defence witness in the Vijay Mallya extradition hearing, who recounted a conversation he had had with one of the men. The defence sought to use this and other testimony to question not only conditions in Indian prisons but the reliability of high level assurances in guaranteeing the conditions in which prisoners were kept in, as well as the ability to rectify breaches of orders on improving conditions. They also highlighted Mr. Mallya’s own medical problems, which they suggested would unlikely to be adequately catered for, even under the assurances offered by India.

Alan Mitchell, a Scottish prison expert, and elected member of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, who is also a medical practitioner recounted details of a conversation he had had on December 11 with an unnamed member of the six (at the behest of the defence), who portrayed the harrowing conditions in which they were kept in Puzhal. Defence barrister Clare Montgomery contrasted this with the reassurances offered in the British Parliament by senior members of the government who had insisted that consular access was ensuring improved conditions. In a twist to the case that caught the prosecution off-guard, Mr. Mitchell recounted how the unnamed man described being grabbed and taken to a psychiatric hospital by prisoners and staff for “excessively walking around the prison,” and while at the hospital staff attempted to force feed him anti-psychotic staff. The former prisoner also told Mr. Mitchell how another prisoner had, following a long application process, been granted permission to attend a private hospital where he had been diagnosed with cancer, but had subsequently not been given treatment when he returned to jail. “Did the intervention of consular staff have any impact,” asked Ms. Montgomery of the prisoners general attempts to improve conditions. “No,” insisted Mr. Mitchell, who provided further details of the man’s account, which included the presence of rats, cockroaches, and the lack of a mattress for months in the 50 -square meter room in which the 23 foreign nationals were being held, and the failure of a prisoner to have access to a dentist despite an abcess. “Despite assurances being given in Parliament he was extremely disappointed by the effect the involvement of the high commission and the UK government had on the conditions in which he and his fellow prisoners were held,” said Mr. Mitchell.

The case of the Chennai Six was part of a wider body of testimony presented by Mr. Mitchell, via which the defence sought to undermine the credibility of assurances given by India around the conditions Dr. Mallya would be held in Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai, should he be successful extradited. This included Mr. Mitchell’s assessment of the lack of a “regular open process of inspection,” without which, he argued, assurances amounted to very little, pointing to one case he had testified in where a prison inspector had insisted there had been no complaints from a single prisoner in twelve years. He also highlighted his own inspection of “the filthy conditions” in Alipore Jail in the past, which included a lack of adequate health care including mental health care provision (which only covered the use of drug therapy), and the sight of prisoners “rocking back and forth on the floor”. “Until the time I went I have not encountered prison conditions as “deplorable” as I saw in Alipore,” Mr. Mitchell told the court.

He also questioned the adequacy of the medical staff available to prisoners at Barrack 12 of Arthur Road jail, particularly given Vijay Mallya’s medical conditions, which included diabetes, coronary artery disease and sleep apnea. While the government’s assurances mentioned 4 doctors – one of whom would be available 24 hours a day – he noted that for a similar number of inmates (3,000) a British prison would have 12 doctors and 60 nurses. He also criticised the assurances given by the government, including photographs, for being “very general in nature.” “They make reference to adequate…what is adequate,” he said.

The defence also sought to focus on the authorities response to a Bombay High Court directive on reform of prison conditions in the state, and the lack of response which had taken place to date, with prison officials able to change very little without being given additional resources.

The prosecution sought to challenge the reliability of Mr. Mitchell’s testimony, suggesting at one point Mr. Mitchell might be being used by the anonymous former prisoner as a “platform to launch a compensation claim” against the British government. “What you have to offer is the uncorroborated content of a conversation you had with somebody two days ago – of his experiences in a prison in Chennai – having been arrested in India for criminal offences and detained there for sometime – not extradited to India?,” he asked the witness. He also sought to highlight how conditions varied greatly between and across states, as well as the British Home Office’s own assessment which judged conditions in Indian courts not to be systematically life threatening.

The defence also highlighted the controversy between India and Portugal over Abu Salem, the 1993 bombings accused, and assurances that had been given to a Portuguese court in the effort to extradite him that he wouldn’t be sentenced for a period of longer than 25 years. He has been sentenced to life.

Following the government challenge to the anonymous Chennai 6 man’s evidence, Montgomery said that his evidence to the court would be formalised within the next two days.

During an intense session cross-examination session, Mr. Mitchell declined to give the green light to a number of more specific assurances including regarding access to natural light and access to medical care that would be made available at Barrack 12, as well as around the bodies that be involved in monitoring the prison. He argued that there was a difference between an assurance that a body could monitor, versus actual monitoring. The only way to truly assess the quality of the assurances given by India would be for him to undertake a visit, Mr. Mitchell said. “Visits are important…because it allows an independent expert to see for themselves what the conditions of detention are but also engage with prison authorities and dialogue to get a fuller understanding of how the regime operates within that particular prison.”

During a discussion in which Russian prisons were compared to those in India, Mr. Mitchell said that with the exception of a prison for life sentence prisoners in Russia the material conditions, including access to healthcare, were “above those within the Indian prison system.”

The hearing will now continue into the New Year, resuming on January 10, when arguments about the admissibility of evidence from both side will be considered. The judge has also sought further clarification on prison conditions.

***********
Press Trust of India, London, Dec 14 2017, 13:36 IST

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/648064/mallya-assets-freeze-order-uk.html

Vijay Mallya, who is undergoing an extradition trial in a UK court over Rs 9,000-crore fraud and money laundering charges, will face next year a parallel litigation brought by 13 Indian banks to freeze nearly USD 1.5 billion of his assets.

According to court documents submitted at the UK High Court, the claim brought by the Indian banks against the 61- year-old embattled liquor baron will come up for a hearing in April next year.

"The First Respondent's (Mallya) application to set aside the Freezing Injunction is to be set down for hearing on the first available date after 11 April 2018 with a time estimate of 2 days," states the court document.

The litigation in the Queen's Bench Division of the commercial court in England's High Court of Justice lists the 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 as the applicants.

Mallya and related concerns Ladywalk LLP, Rose Capital Ventures Ltd and Orange India Holdings are listed as respondents.

The claim, dated November 23, relates to a judgment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Karnataka dated January 19 this year, which concluded that Mallya was "liable" to the banks in the sum of INR 62,033,503,879.42 plus interest and as at November 22, that judgment sum is "still unsatisfied as to INR 98,530,512,249.42".

The "freezing order" involves Mallya and related concerns being "restrained until further order, from removing from the jurisdiction any of their assets in the jurisdiction up to a limit of 1,145,000,000 pounds and in any way disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of any of their assets whether they are inside or outside the jurisdiction up to the same value".

The UK court had upheld the Indian courts injunction last week and given Mallya's lawyers more time to respond due to the ongoing extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates Court, which is now expected to conclude on December 20.

A ruling in the extradition case is expected a few weeks later, by mid-January.

Meanwhile, Mallya remains on a 650,000-pound bail bond since his arrest on an extradition warrant by Scotland Yard in April this year.

Since December 4, he has been in court over five days of hearings to establish if he can be forced to return to India to face charges of fraud and money laundering involving his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines default of bank loans worth nearly Rs 9,000-crore.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), representing the Indian government, has claimed that the evidence they have presented confirms "dishonesty" on the part of the businessman, who acquired the loans through misrepresentation and had no intentions of repaying them.

Mallya's defence team has been deposing a series of expert witnesses to try and establish that the default by Kingfisher Airlines was the result of business failure within a wider context of a global financial crisis and that its owner had no "fraudulent" intentions.

The extradition case returns for one of its final hearings today, when Judge Emma Arbuthnot is set to hear the testimony of prisons expert Dr Alan Mitchell, who is expected to critique Indian jail conditions as a potential "bar to extradition".

The CPS will need to demonstrate a prima facie case to show that the criminal charges against Mallya, for which his extradition is sought, are justified.

The defence, on the other hand, will try and prove that the businessman will not get a fair trial in India because the case against him is "politically motivated".

 

[Hindustani78]

AYUSH
21-January, 2018 19:18 IST
International Homeopathy expert Ms. Rachel Roberts meets Shri Shripad Naik

Ms. Rachel Roberts, international expert of Homeopathy from Homeopathy Research Institute and Faculty of Homeopathy, U.K. called on Shri. Shripad Yesso Naik, Union Minister of State (IC), for AYUSH in Goa today. In the meeting, Ms. Roberts told the Minister that the international homeopathic community looked up to India for the integrated healthcare model being adopted by India. She said every person should have the freedom of choosing the treatment method for their health, and that India was a fine example of how it can be made possible. Ms. Roberts aims to interact with the Homeopathic community during her visit and learn more about the Homeopathy sector in India, particularly the institutionalization of Homeopathy in public health. The Minister welcomed her to India and assured her of full support of the Ministry in helping her meet the purpose of her visit.



In this regard, Ministry of AYUSH has approved of six meetings being held by Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH), an autonomous body of Ministry of AYUSH that undertakes scientific research in Homoeopathy, in Delhi (25th and 27th Jan), Kolkata (29th Jan) and in Kottayam (Kerala) on 31st Jan and 1stFebruary. These meetings would provide an opportunity for exchange of homoeopathy knowledge and expertise between India and U.K, as well as for professional collaborations which can be used to secure the future of Homoeopathy worldwide. The aim of these meetings is to project the accurate image of Homoeopathy by showcasing the advantages of using Homoeopathy in public health delivery model. The deliberations will also address the challenges in Homoeopathy being faced in the international arena.

CCRH will also be running exclusive screenings of a one-hour film titled ‘Just One drop’ on Homoeopathy during the meetings.


***

The International expert of Homeopathy from Homeopathy Research Institute and Faculty of Homeopathy, U.K., Ms. Rachel Roberts calling on the Minister of State for AYUSH (Independent Charge), Shri Shripad Yesso Naik, at Panaji, Goa on January 21, 2018.

The International expert of Homeopathy from Homeopathy Research Institute and Faculty of Homeopathy, U.K., Ms. Rachel Roberts calling on the Minister of State for AYUSH (Independent Charge), Shri Shripad Yesso Naik, at Panaji, Goa on January 21, 2018.

 

[Hindustani78]

Posted On: 22 JAN 2018 12:40PM by PIB Delhi

An India-UK Green Growth Equity Fund (GGEF) is also being set-up under the fund of funds vertical of NIIF, and shall have anchor commitments of GBP 120 million each from Government of India (through NIIF) and Government of UK.

 

[Hindustani78]

http://www.thehindu.com/business/In...ovt-critics/article22500317.ece?homepage=true
LONDON, January 23, 2018 22:30 IST
Updated: January 23, 2018 22:46 IST

Spoke in the wheel: Some have used the issue to bolster the case for another chance for U.K. to decide on Brexit. AP | Photo Credit: AP


Development cited as ‘example of damage’ spurred by Brexit


Plans by Jaguar Land Rover to cut production at its Halewood plant in the U.K. citing Brexit and concerns about the future of diesel and petrol vehicles gained political attention as critics of the government pointed to the development as an example of the damage wrought by uncertainty around Brexit and government policy on future engine systems.

Late on Monday, JLR, part of Tata Motors, said that following a regular review of production schedules, “temporary adjustments” would be made to production at Halewood, where the Range Rover Evoque and the Land Rover Discovery Sport are assembled, in a move that had already been communicated to the workforce.

The company pointed to the uncertainty around Brexit, which had hit demand in Britain, where demand for new cars had fallen by 5.7% in 2017, as well as more widely across Europe, which accounted for 45% of U.K. production. “Add to this, concern around the future of petrol and diesel engines, and general global economic and political uncertainty and it’s clear to see why industry is seeing an impact on car sales,” it said.

Earlier this month, the firm said it had sold over 620,000 units in 2017, its best year to date, though it had pointed to “tough conditions” in key markets including Britain.

Liberal democrat leader Vincent Cable, a strong opponent of Brexit, pointed to the development, raising questions about the impact on jobs, and knock on effects on the supply chain, including at the JLR engine plant in Wolverhampton. The development was also widely picked up on social media by pro-Remain groups, with some using it to bolster their case for the need for Britons to have another opportunity to decide on Brexit.

Diesel engine policy
“Brexit uncertainty along with the government’s confused policy on diesel engines [is] to blame,” said Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, who said they were in close dialogue with JLR.

Alongside Brexit, JLR and the wider car industry have repeatedly pointed to the direction of government policy regarding the internal combustion engine, as another major challenge awaiting the industry. Vehicle makers have already begun preparing for a new policy environment globally, amid an array of plans to push car makers towards the production of electric vehicles. Britain plans to ban the sale of conventional diesel and petrol cars from 2040 onwards, though industry has called for greater clarity, as well as initiative from the government in terms of infrastructure support. In early January the industry body, the SMMT, announced that in 2017, Britain’s new car market fell for the first time in six years. While sales of hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars rose sharply, and there was a modest rise in sales of petrol cars, there was a sharp fall in diesel sales amid concerns about future regulation and levies on such vehicles.