Jet Airways case: Court shuts case against Naresh Goyal, his wife

The magistrate court on Tuesday rejected the protest petition of ATIPL and closed the case by accepting the closure report.(Satish Bate/HT Photo)
The magistrate court on Tuesday rejected the protest petition of ATIPL and closed the case by accepting the closure report.(Satish Bate/HT Photo)
Updated on Dec 22, 2020 11:35 PM IST
Copy Link
By Charul Shah, Mumbai

A day after the Bombay high court (HC) rejected a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), opposing closure of a cheating case against Jet Airways and its directors Naresh Goyal and his wife Anita, the metropolitan magistrate court on Tuesday closed the case by accepting the closure report filed by MRA Marg police.

MRA Marg police had filed the closure report on November 9 after probing the complaint filed by Rajendran Neruparambil, chief financial officer (CFO) of Akbar Travels of India Pvt Ltd (ATIPL), against Jet Airways and the Goyals.

Neruparambil had alleged that in 2018-19, Jet Airways owed ATIPL 46.05 crore. He further alleged that the Goyals’ had engaged ATIPL in business despite being aware of the financial crisis faced by the airline, which shut operations in April 2019 and had accumulated debt of nearly 8,500 crore.

After conducting a probe, MRA Marg police filed a closure report in March, having found no evidence of cheating; and sought closure on the grounds that it was a civil case.

The magistrate court on Tuesday rejected the protest petition of ATIPL and closed the case by accepting the closure report.

ATIPL’s lawyer, advocate Dharmesh Joshi, said that they would appeal against the ruling, once a detailed order becomes available.

The order comes a day after the HC rejected the plea of the ED to intervene in the case before the magistrate and oppose the closure report.

It was on the basis of the MRA Marg case that ED had initiated the probe into money laundering allegations against the Goyals. But neither the magistrate court nor the sessions court allowed ED to intervene in the case to oppose its closure. On Monday, HC upheld the order, observing, “The petitioner [ED] is an independent investigating agency, empowered to investigate offences under the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) and FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act) and in the facts, cannot be termed as a victim or aggrieved/injured person interested in the case.”

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Close Story
SHARE
Story Saved
OPEN APP
×
Saved Articles
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Saturday, October 16, 2021