ED facilitates disbursal of ₹10.5 crore to 11,883 more victims of Rose Valley Ponzi scheme
'In the committee presided over by ADC Chairperson Justice (retired) Dilip Kr. Seth, ED (Kolkata) has played a crucial role in facilitating the attachment, possession, and disbursement of assets of the Rose Valley Group, thereby smoothening and expediting the restitution of properties to the thousands of victims in West Bengal, Odisha, Assam, etc.,' an agency official said.
The agency is actively assisting the ADC in conducting survey and valuation of the confirmed attached properties and in facilitating expeditious monetisation of assets for disbursal to the investors/victims.
'Further restitution process is expected to continue over the coming months as more claims are scrutinised and validated by the ADC. As on date, the ADC has processed 72,760 claims resulting into funds disbursal of about ₹55.45 crore,' the agency said.
The ED has attached movable properties worth ₹494 crore and immovable assets valued at ₹1,069 crore, spread across West Bengal, Odisha, Assam, and Tripura, with properties in West Bengal alone accounting for ₹1,184 crore.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error': Gujarat HC quashes 2010 rape FIR against minor; quotes from SC judgment
Quoting from a 1977 Supreme Court judgment, which held that 'adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error', the Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR lodged in Rajkot in 2010 against a then minor for alleged rape. The order of Justice J C Doshi of the Gujarat HC on Wednesday considered the submission of the advocate of the petitioner that laid emphasis on Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which stated that 'nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.' The accused was aged under 11 years in 2010. Stating that the Inspector of the Rajkot police station 'must not have the knowledge of Section 83 of the IPC', the HC said that the petition 'deserves consideration', especially since it is not the case of the prosecution that 'forensic test was carried out at the relevant time, that whether the petitioner was, though 11 years old at the time of alleged incident, mature enough to understand the consequences of the alleged act.' The HC order, while citing relevant case laws of the Supreme Court, stated, 'According to this Court, the PI, Bhaktinagar Police Station, must not have knowledge of section 83 of the IPC or (that) filing of FIR is in defiance of section 83 of the IPC. Under the circumstances, present petition requires consideration.' The court also directed the investigating officer concerned as well as the trial court to remove and delete the name of the petitioner from the police records, investigation papers as well as the Registry to protect his identity. The advocate appearing for the minor had submitted to the court that at the time of the incident, the petitioner was ten-and-a-half years old and therefore, 'cannot be treated as accused' under Section 83 of the IPC on the ground of his 'lack of majority'. The petitioner's advocate also submitted that 'no forensic intervention was carried out to establish that he was major (by age) to understand the offence…' The counsel appearing for the complainant of the FIR had submitted that the allegations were 'of serious nature and whether the petitioner is mature or understanding (of) the seriousness of the offence can be tested during trial and the FIR cannot be quashed on the touchstone of reading section 83 of the IPC'. The 2010 FIR was lodged against the minor under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 354 (criminal force against woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) .
NDTV
27 minutes ago
- NDTV
Court Dismisses Turkish Firm's Plea Against Revocation Of Security Clearance
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea by Turkish-based company Celebi Ground Handling India Private Limited against the Centre's decision to revoke its security clearance. "Dismissed," Justice Tejas Karia said, noting that similar pleas were quashed earlier. A different bench of the high court on July 7 dismissed pleas by Turkey-based firms -- Celebi Airport Services India Pvt Ltd and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt Ltd -- challenging the revocation of their security clearance by aviation watchdog Bureau of Civil Aviation Safety (BCAS) on May 15, saying there are "compelling national security considerations" involved. BCAS revoked the security clearance days after Turkey backed Pakistan and condemned India's strikes on terror camps in the neighbouring country. During the argument, the company's advocate told the judge that the petition was filed on July 4 after a coordinate bench reserved its judgement in a similar case involving associated companies. The counsel said the July 7 verdict directly applied to the present case as well, and urged the judge to pass a similar order. The court on July 7 underlined the necessity to eliminate the possibility of espionage or dual use of logistics capabilities, which would be highly detrimental to the security of the country, especially in the event of an external conflict.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Will first hear on maintainability issue on August 6 on pleas seeking review of PMLA verdict: SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would first hear arguments on August 6 on the issue of maintainability of the petitions seeking a review of its July 2022 verdict that upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) powers to arrest, attach properties allegedly involved in money laundering, and carry out search and seizure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A three-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the ED has proposed three preliminary issues that primarily deal with the question of the review petitions' maintainability. The bench said the review petitioners have proposed 13 questions for its consideration. It noted the submissions of the questions raised by both parties and fixed the matter for further hearing on August 6. 'Since the proposed issues are arising in the review proceedings, we propose to first hear the parties on the issue of maintainability of the review petitions, followed by a hearing on the questions proposed to be raised on behalf of the review petitioners. Eventually, the questions that would finally arise for consideration will also be determined by us if we hold that the review petitions are maintainable,' the bench observed. The Supreme Court had on 4 May 2025 reconstituted a new bench to hear a batch of review petitions filed against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (VMC) judgment, which upheld certain provisions of the PMLA. The VMC judgment was delivered on 27 July 2022 by a three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, and Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar (all now retired). It upheld certain provisions of the PMLA. 'Sections 5, 8 (4), 15, 17 and 19 of PMLA, relating to the Directorate's power of attachment, search and seizure, and arrest is upheld,' the top court had said.
