IMA group ponzi scam: ED attaches Rs 209-cr assets under PMLA; summons Karnataka minister
Bengaluru, Jun 28: The Enforcement Directorate Friday issued notice to Karnataka minister B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan to appear before it in connection with the IMA group ponzi scam, a top official of the agency said.
"We have issued a notice to Zameer Ahmed Khan. We have given one week's time to appear before us," the official said.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had recently filed a criminal case of money laundering against the IMA group of companies and its absconding managing director Mohammed Mansoor Khan after reports emerged that he has gone underground fearing investments worth crores of about 40,000 investors have tanked.
The ED Friday attached IMA Jewels' assets, worth Rs 209 crore, in its money laundering probe into the alleged ponzi scam.
The central agency said it's Bengaluru zonal office has issued a provisional order, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, for attachment of immovable assets worth Rs 197 crore and about Rs 12 crore deposits in bank accounts.
The BJP's Karnataka unit recently demanded a CBI probe into the alleged fraud and also raised questions about Zameer Khan's alleged links with Mansoor Khan.
"While asking him (Mansoor) to come back, Zameer, who is a minister, has said that 'the government is with you (Mansoor), don't fear'. What does this mean? The chief minister has to answer," state BJP chief B S Yeddyurappa had said.
Hitting back at Yeddyurappa, Zameer Khan had said it was he who took the initiative after the incident came to light and sought a SIT probe.
Mansoor Khan went absconding weeks ago, after he, in an audio clip, allegedly threatened to commit suicide.
After the audio clip went viral, panicked investors, most of them Muslims, had swarmed the firm's office at Shivajinagar in thousands, demanding action against the owner and directors.
Mansoor Khan had also alleged that Shivajinagar Congress MLA Roshan Baig took Rs 400 crore from him and was not returning it, a charge rubbished by Baig.
The state government has set up a 11-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case.
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.
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
