London: Embattled liquor baron Vijay Mallya, wanted in India on charges of fraud and money laundering allegedly amounting to around Rs 9,000 crore, today appeared in court here for a hearing related to his extradition trial.

 

The 62-year-old Mallya is back in the dock at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London for what is expected to be one of the final hearings in the case to determine the "admissibility" of some of the evidence presented by the Indian government.

 

Judge Emma Arbuthnot will rule on the evidence, following which she is expected to set a timetable for closing arguments and her verdict on whether the UK-based businessman can be extradited to India to face the fraud and money laundering allegations involving his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

 

The judge had directed both sides to submit their arguments for and against the admissibility of the material, which will be taken up this week.

 

Judge Arbuthnot had also sought further clarifications related to availability of natural light and medical assistance at Barrack 12 of Mumbai Central Prison on Arthur Road, where Mallya is to be held if he is extradited from Britain.

 

The extradition trial, which opened at the London court on December 4, is aimed at laying out a prima facie case of fraud against the tycoon, who has been based in the UK since he fled India in March, 2016.

 

It will also seek to prove that there are no "bars to extradition" and that Mallya is assured a fair trial in India over his erstwhile airline's alleged default of over Rs 9,000 crore in loans from a consortium of Indian banks.

 

Mallya was arrested by Scotland Yard on an extradition warrant in April, 2017 and has been out on bail on a bond worth 650,000 pounds.

 

Chief Magistrate Arbuthnot will present her ruling within a timeframe she sets out at the end of the trial.

 

If she rules in favour of the Indian government, the UK home secretary will have two months to sign Mallya's extradition order.

 

However, both sides will have the chance to appeal in higher courts in the UK against the chief magistrate's verdict.

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday said the high court would decide whether the elected gram panchayat members, whose five-year tenure was over in Manipur, were entitled to continue in their posts in the event of the appointment of an administrative committee or an administrator.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said it would like to have the benefit of the view of the high court in the matter and set a three-month time frame to adjudicate the legal question.

"The question that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the elected member of the Gram Panchayat whose five-year tenure is over was entitled to continue as members of the gram panchayat in the event of appointment of administrative committee or administrator, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act of 1994," the bench noted.

The Manipur government’s counsel said the state could not hold panchayat elections due to the unprecedented violence.

"Since, we would like to have the advantage of the opinion of the high court, we dispose of the special leave petition without expressing any opinion on merits, with the request to the chief justice of Manipur High Court to post the main case before a division bench at the earliest. We further request the division bench, before whom the matter is listed, to provide expeditious hearing with an endeavour to resolve the controversy within three months," the bench said.

The bench noted that provision of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act was amended to substitute the word "cease" with the word "continue" with respect to the tenure of the elected members of the gram panchayat.

The petitioners have challenged a high court order and submitted that since elections in gram panchayat could not be held in Manipur for various reasons, the previously elected members of the panchayat were entitled to continue as per the amended Section 22 (3) of 1994 Act.

Section 22 deals with the power of deputy commissioner to appoint an administrative committee or an administrator for a period of six months, which will then oversee the election.

Section 22 (3) of the law says once the administrative committee or an administrator is appointed by the deputy commissioner, the elected members of earlier gram panchayat shall cease to exist.

The top court said what has been challenged before it was an interlocutory order of the high court and the main petition in which the question of law that had been raised was still pending.

The original petitioners before the high court were elected representatives at the fifth general elections for gram panchayats and the zilla parishads who sought a direction to continue in the office beyond the period of five years as stipulated by law as elections were last held in 2017.

They sought to continue as panchayat members till the time the state election commission notified the election for the sixth general elections for gram panchayats and zilla parishads.

On February 29, last year, the high court in its interim order gave liberty to Manipur government to appoint an administrative committee for each gram panchayat and zilla parishad in accordance with law and the provision of the Act.