A Delhi court has issued notice to liquor baron Vijay Mallya on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) plea, seeking to withdraw the exemption granted to him from personal appearance in a case for allegedly evading summons in connection with purported violation of foreign exchange rules.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Sumit Dass sought Mallya’s response by May 20 on a plea filed by the ED, which also sought issuance of non-bailable warrant against the chairman of now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines to secure his presence in the ongoing trial of the case. “Issue notice to the counsel for the accused (Mallya) for May 20,” the court said.
The plea, filed through ED’s prosecutor NK Matta, said Mallya was granted exemption from personal appearance on December 20, 2000, till further orders and he is reportedly in the UK. “The accused is reported to be out of country in a separate case of PMLA being investigated by the directorate. The accused has failed to attend the proceedings under PMLA and is reported to be in the UK,” it said.
It said Mallya’s presence in the ongoing trial of the case was essential and sought the court’s direction to him to remain present in every hearing.
The agency urged the court to “withdraw the exemption given from personal appearance of the accused and to issue non-bailable warrant to secure the presence of the accused in the ongoing trial”.
Earlier, Matta had argued that the court should recall its December 2000 order by which Mallya was granted permanent exemption from personal appearance as a PMLA court in Mumbai has recently issued an open-ended warrant against Mallya in connection with a money laundering case.
In the present case, the ED had alleged that Mallya had violated provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) in arranging funds to advertise his company’s liquor products abroad. The agency had claimed that Mallya was summoned on four occasions for questioning in connection with a contract signed in December 1995 with London-based firm Benetton Formula Ltd for promotion of the Kingfisher brand abroad.
When he failed to appear before the ED, a complaint was filed on March 8, 2000, before a court here and later on charge was framed against him under Section 56 of FERA.