Latest news with #VikramRavindran
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
'Parasakthi' producer Aakash Baskaran's Tasmac case, Madras High Court slaps Rs. 30,000 fine on ED
In April, enforcement officials conducted raids at the Tasmac headquarters and several liquor factories in connection with a large-scale fraud allegedly taking place at the Tasmac Corporation. Authorities said that a fraud of around ₹1,000 crore had taken place at that time. Searches were conducted at the homes and offices of 'Parasakthi' producer Aakash Baskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran in connection with the matter. At the end of the investigation, Vikram Ravindran's assets were sealed. Here's a detailed report. Aakash Baskaran and Vikram Ravindran move court to lift asset seal Aakash Baskaran and Vikram Ravindran filed a case in the Madras High Court against this action. In this case, they demanded that the enforcement department's action be stayed and that the seal placed on their properties be removed. According to Nakkheeran, during the trial, Aakash Baskaran was ordered to return the seized documents, and an order was issued to temporarily halt further proceedings. ED seeks more time during August 6 hearing The case came up for hearing again on August 6. On this occasion, the lawyer appearing for the Enforcement Directorate said that the reply petition has not yet been prepared. Therefore, he requested more time. The judges expressed their strong dissatisfaction with this. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mr. Bala's Powerful Intraday Strategy Revealed – No More Guesswork TradeWise Learn More Undo The judges also strongly criticized that not responding even after being granted time twice was not proper practice. Court imposes Rs. 30,000 fine on ED for procedural lapse The Enforcement Directorate stated that it was required to file a joint response and requested that time be granted only this time. But the judges opposed it and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 each, for a total of ₹30,000 on the enforcement department. The court ordered that this amount be paid to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court's relief fund and adjourned the next hearing of the case to the 20th.
New Indian Express
7 days ago
- New Indian Express
Madras HC slaps Rs 30,000 costs on ED for not filing counter affidavits in Tasmac scam case
CHENNAI: In what is considered to be a first-of-its-kind move, the Madras High Court on Wednesday imposed costs of Rs 10,000 each, for three petitions, on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for failing to file counter affidavits to the petitions moved by film producer Akash Bhaskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran over the search and seizure operations held in their offices and residences for money laundering connected to the alleged Tasmac scam. The order imposing costs was passed by a division bench of Justices M S Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan after taking seriously the failure of the ED to file the counter affidavits despite giving it a last chance. The bench termed it 'unfair' on the part of the central agency for not having come up with the counter affidavit. Special public prosecutor N Ramesh, appearing for ED, submitted that the counter affidavit was being prepared as a comprehensive one encompassing the three petitions and so, it could not be completed on time. He sought more time to file it.
News18
06-08-2025
- News18
Madras HC imposes cost on ED for failure to file counter affidavit
Chennai, Aug 6 (PTI) The Madras High Court on Wednesday imposed a cost of Rs 30,000 on Enforcement Directorate for its failure to file counter affidavit, despite giving two opportunities earlier, to the petitions filed by film producer Akash Baskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran. A division bench comprising Justices M S Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan imposed the cost and posted to August 20, further hearing of the case. Originally, Akash and Vikram challenged the action of the ED in conducting search and seizure in connection with the alleged Rs 1,000 crore Tasmac money laundering case. The bench had on June 20 stayed all further proceedings, pursuant to the Enforcement Directorate's authorization to conduct search and seizure, against Akash Baskaran and Vikram Ravindran in the alleged Rs 1,000 crore Tasmac money laundering case. Thereafter, the case came up for hearing twice. On both the occasions, Special Public Prosecutor N Ramesh sought time to file a counter affidavit. When the case came up for hearing on Wednesday, again SPP Ramesh sought time to file a counter affidavit. Following this, the bench imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 each in respect of three petitions filed by Akash and Vikram. PTI COR VGN KH view comments First Published: August 06, 2025, 20:00 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
20-06-2025
- NDTV
Madras High Court Stays Probe Agency ED Action Against Producer Vikram Ravindran, Associate
Chennai: In a major setback for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the high-profile TASMAC money laundering probe, the Madras High Court has stayed proceedings against Tamil film producer Vikram Ravindran and his associate, ruling that the ED's search and seizure operation was without authority and jurisdiction. The court also directed the ED to return all properties seized during the raid including electronic devices, with a caveat that the petitioners must not tamper with or alienate the contents of the returned items. Delivering a scathing verdict, the court noted that the ED failed to produce any incriminating material that would justify initiating proceedings against the petitioners. Despite being given two opportunities to submit evidence justifying the search, the agency could not furnish any document that suggested Mr Ravindran and his friend were involved in money laundering linked to the Rs 1,000 crore TASMAC scam. "The material presented in a sealed cover does not contain any semblance of information, which may have led them to believe that the petitioner may be involved in the offence of money laundering," the court said. It said no incriminating documents were in the ED's possession when the search was first authorised. The petitioners said they had no role in TASMAC operations and were not named in any of the 41 first information reports filed by the state's directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption. The ED earlier claimed to possess incriminating documents and alleged the duo's involvement. Alleging a Rs 1,000 crore scam in TASMAC, the government arm that sells liquor, the ED accused distilleries and bottle manufacturing firms of colluding in corrupt practices amounting to over Rs 1,000 crore. In a significant development during the hearing, the ED said it had no authority to seal the petitioners' properties and agreed to de-seal the premises. This comes at a time when the Supreme Court has already stayed the ED probe into the TASMAC case, expressing concern over the agency's aggressive approach. The Supreme Court questioned the very basis of criminal action against a state-run corporation, particularly when FIRs were registered against individuals and not the corporation itself. It had also warned that the ED was "crossing all limits" and "breaching the federal structure". The ruling DMK has repeatedly alleged that central agencies like the ED are being misused by the BJP-led Union government to target Opposition-ruled states and political rivals. The BJP has denied all such charges. Opposition parties have highlighted the ED's alleged coercive role in extracting large political donations under the now-scrapped electoral bonds scheme.
Hindustan Times
20-06-2025
- Hindustan Times
Madras HC stays ED proceedings against film producer, bizman
Chennai, The Madras High Court on Friday stayed all further proceedings, pursuant to the Enforcement Directorate's authorisation to conduct search and seizure, against film producer Akash Baskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran in the alleged ₹1,000 crore TASMAC money laundering case. A division bench comprising Justices M S Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan granted the interim stay on the petitions filed by Baskaran and Vikram, challenging the action of the ED. Senior counsels Vijay Narayanan and Abudukumar submitted that the petitioners have no involvement with the TASMAC operations at all and in the alleged 41 FIRs lodged by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for the scheduled offences, no independent allegation or predicate offence has been registered against the petitioners and therefore questioned the validity of the invocation of Section 17 of the PMLA. In its order, the bench said since the petitioners had totally denied any involvement relating to the scheduled offences, it had called upon the Special Public Prosecutor to produce before it the materials forming the basis of information in their possession, which has led them to believe that the petitioners had committed an act, which constitutes money laundering or is in possession of any proceeds of crime, records or property, in a sealed cover, through an interim order dated June 13, 2025. On June 17, the SPP produced a sealed cover along with an undated and unsigned brief explanation note along with supporting materials, claiming it to be the information they possess about the petitioners, which led them to initiate the search operations, the bench added. The bench said the brief explanation note, however, also does not relate to the information or materials which the Directorate claims to have in possession in their earlier notes on "reason to believe" produced on June 17. Neither does this brief explanation note disclose any information in the possession of the Directorate, which authorises them to conduct the search and seizure operations in the petitioners premises, the bench added. The bench said when it indicated to Additional Solicitor General S V Raju that whatever the information/materials they had produced before it in the sealed cover had no nexus to their original claims of being in possession of incriminating information, he submitted that the 41 FIRs, relating to the scheduled offences registered against the TASMAC officials, were the information in their possession, which authorises them to conduct the search and seizure operation. "When we expressed to the Additional Solicitor General that we do not approve his claim in this regard, the Additional Solicitor General submitted that they had already directed the respondent to de-seal the petitioner's premises . His statement is hereby recorded. The Additional Solicitor General sought four weeks time to file a counter affidavit before us," the bench added. The bench said, "On a prima facie view, we find that the Authorisation No.96/2025, dated May 15,2025 and the consequential sealing of the petitioner's premises by the respondent, is wholly without authority or jurisdiction, since no incriminating information or material was in their possession on May 15, 2025 when the respondent had authorised for search and seizure operations and on May 16, 2025 when the respondent had sealed the petitioner's premises". The bench said it consciously refrained from describing the alleged material or information claimed to be in the possession of the ED for obvious reasons. However, it would suffice to state that the so-called information produced by the Directorate before it has absolutely no semblance of an information, which may have led them to believe that the petitioner may be involved in the offence of money laundering. "In the light of the above observations, there shall be an order of interim stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the respondent's Authorization No.96/2025 dated May, 15,.2025, pending disposal of this Writ Petition", the bench added. The bench said there shall be a further interim order to the ED to return all the seized properties of the petitioners, pursuant to the search and seizure operations conducted on May 16, pending final disposal of this Writ Petition. The petitioners shall not tamper or alienate the digital devices that has been returned to him/to be returned to him, pending final disposal of this writ petition. The bench posted to July 16, for further hearing of the case.
