Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 12/11/2025 - if a ref can be secured

[DutchRover]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

No reason is given in the filing list.

Every previous application has either been to ask to send monies or to try and change the conditions for doing so.

There’s no longer a need to go to court just to be able to send funds as the Directorate of Enforcement are ‘happy’ to issue No Objection Certificates subject to the previously imposed conditions being adhered to.

Therefore my guess, and it is just that, is they’re trying again to have the guarantee requirement removed.

 

Cheers

Does make me wonder what their angle is. Removing the guarantee would certainly make it harder to claim the court case prevents correct funding of the club, which they seem to have been doing so far (unless they have next to no liquidity the guarantee ought not to present an issue to billionaires). I guess it could just be spite/pride, and unwillingness to pay into a guarantee if they are already in dispute with the bank

Do we know does the Indian Gov is block transfer of funds for investment in playing staff (i.e. transfer fees), and only allow "day-to-day" costs to be serviced as part of the 'NOCs'? Given the investigation is into the mis-use of investment funds could this be part of the issue? A fear that "transfer money" would be used in other ways or siphoned to agents?

 

 

 

[Tomphil2]

It's running costs only but in any case when have they sent money for transfers ?

They don't, whenever there's been modest spending it always comes when outgoing sales money is dropping in the account.

[Upside Down]

12 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

Cheers

Does make me wonder what their angle is. Removing the guarantee would certainly make it harder to claim the court case prevents correct funding of the club, which they seem to have been doing so far (unless they have next to no liquidity the guarantee ought not to present an issue to billionaires). I guess it could just be spite/pride, and unwillingness to pay into a guarantee if they are already in dispute with the bank

Do we know does the Indian Gov is block transfer of funds for investment in playing staff (i.e. transfer fees), and only allow "day-to-day" costs to be serviced as part of the 'NOCs'? Given the investigation is into the mis-use of investment funds could this be part of the issue? A fear that "transfer money" would be used in other ways or siphoned to agents?

 

 

 

They've to provide a detailed list of where the money is going when it's sent over. 

Perhaps this could be the real issue they have with the restrictions placed upon them?

[wilsdenrover]

18 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

Cheers

Does make me wonder what their angle is. Removing the guarantee would certainly make it harder to claim the court case prevents correct funding of the club, which they seem to have been doing so far (unless they have next to no liquidity the guarantee ought not to present an issue to billionaires). I guess it could just be spite/pride, and unwillingness to pay into a guarantee if they are already in dispute with the bank

Do we know does the Indian Gov is block transfer of funds for investment in playing staff (i.e. transfer fees), and only allow "day-to-day" costs to be serviced as part of the 'NOCs'? Given the investigation is into the mis-use of investment funds could this be part of the issue? A fear that "transfer money" would be used in other ways or siphoned to agents?

 

 

 

We don’t know because Venkys have never asked…

[DutchRover]

5 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

They've to provide a detailed list of where the money is going when it's sent over. 

Perhaps this could be the real issue they have with the restrictions placed upon them?

It would explain why they suddenly lost interest in the club once the investigation started...