ED arrests Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal in bank fraud case
Mumbai (PTI): The Enforcement Directorate late Friday night arrested Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal in a money laundering case linked to an alleged bank fraud of Rs 538 crore at the Canara Bank, official sources said.
He was taken into custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) following a long session of questioning at the central agency's office here.
Goyal, 74, is expected to be produced before a special PMLA court in Mumbai on Saturday where the ED will seek his custodial remand, the sources said.
Jet Airways, a full-service carrier, had shut its operations in April, 2019, after running out of cash. Later, Goyal stepped down as the chairperson of the airline.
The money laundering case stems from an FIR of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Jet Airways, Goyal, his wife Anita and some former company executives in connection with the alleged Rs 538-crore fraud case at the Canara Bank.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had carried out raids against Goyal and others involved in the case in July.
The CBI FIR was registered on the bank's complaint which alleged that it sanctioned credit limits and loans to Jet Airways (India) Ltd (JIL) to the tune of Rs 848.86 crore of which Rs 538.62 crore was outstanding.
The CBI had said the account was declared "fraud" on July 29, 2021.
The bank alleged that the forensic audit of JIL showed that it paid "related companies" Rs 1,410.41 crore out of a total commission expenses, thus siphoning off funds from JIL.
"As per sample agreement of Jet Airways (India) Ltd (JIL), it was noted that the expenses of General Selling Agents (GSA) was to be borne by GSA itself and not by JIL. However, it was observed that JIL has paid various expenses amounting to Rs 403.27 crore which is not in tune with the GSA," the complaint now part of the CBI FIR alleged.
It said personal expenses such as salaries of staff, phone bills and vehicle expenses among others of the Goyal family were paid paid by JIL.
Among other allegations, it surfaced during the forensic audit that funds were also siphoned off through Jet Lite (India) Ltd (JLL) by way of making advance and investing and subsequently writing off of the same by making provision.
JIL diverted the funds for subsidiary JLL in the form of loans and advances and investments extended.
In February, another money laundering case against Goyal, linked to alleged cheating and forgery filed by Mumbai-based Akbar Travels, was quashed by the Bombay High Court after the Maharashtra Police filed a closure report stating it found no substance in the complaint and the dispute seemed to be civil in nature.
As this ED case was based on police FIR, and was the predicate offence for filing a money laundering case, it was declared quashed by the high court.
A division bench of justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan quashed the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report or the ED equivalent of an FIR) registered on February 20, 2020, and all proceedings against Goyals on the ground of "being illegal and contrary" to law.
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.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
