Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 5/8/2025 - Post-Season Friendly (s/t late postponements)

[wilsdenrover]

15 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

I'm not convinced the reduction to 50 per cent has been implemented by the Court. It's my belief this was proposed by the judge and he sent both parties legal representatives away to discuss with their instructing parties with a view to considering this a few days later. The subsequent hearing never happened and is still awaited.

No, it’s definitely been implemented - the hearing you’re referring to was 20th May, the hearing when the reduction was applied was 26th May.

 

Edited yesterday at 10:15 by wilsdenrover

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

No, it’s definitely been implemented - order dated 26th May.

Agreed.

Aren't the further hearings that are scheduled if they ever get heard) to discuss whether the need for a guarantee can be removed altogether?

[wilsdenrover]

8 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Agreed.

Aren't the further hearings that are scheduled if they ever get heard) to discuss whether the need for a guarantee can be removed altogether?

The other hearing currently pending (5th August) is a continuation of the original case - this is Venkys wanting to be able to send funds with no conditions whatsoever*

Last month’s case was a separate (albeit clearly linked) appeal looking for the removal of the guarantee condition only.

* other conditions are such things as the club’s auditors providing  an end use certificate within three days of the remittance being received (ie confirming the monies will be used for the requested purpose only).

Edited yesterday at 10:23 by wilsdenrover

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The other hearing currently pending (5th August) is a continuation of the original case - this is Venkys wanting to be able to send funds with no conditions whatsoever*

Last month’s case was a separate (albeit clearly linked) appeal looking for the removal of the guarantee condition only.

* other conditions are such things as the club’s auditors providing  an end use certificate within three days of the remittance being received (ie confirming the monies will be used for the requested purpose only).

Ah I thought the purpose of last month's case was purely to be allowed to send over £4.85m.

With a by product of the hearing being that the "bond" was reduced to 50% on the basis that there'd previously been argument that 100% was too onerous etc.

[wilsdenrover]

10 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Ah I thought the purpose of last month's case was purely to be allowed to send over £4.85m.

With a by product of the hearing being that the "bond" was reduced to 50% on the basis that there'd previously been argument that 100% was too onerous etc.

This next bit is speculation on my part (but I will show my workings 🧐)

If Venkys were willing to pay the 100% guarantee I don’t think they’d have needed to go to court re the £4.85 million.

I’m basing this on the fact they were given permission to send monies in March ‘24 without a judge ordering the authorities to allow this*

With all this in mind, whilst the May case included a request for funds to be sent, I think their main motivation for the appeal was the removal of the guarantee.

* I also have a slight recollection of a poster on here saying Pasha had confirmed a ‘deal had been done’.

I’m presuming that deal was along the lines of  ‘if you keep to the current court conditions we’ll give you permission’ 

I wouldn’t want to rely on that source though (Pasha, not whoever that poster was 😁).

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Upside Down]

9 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

This next bit is speculation on my part (but I will show my workings 🧐)

If Venkys were willing to pay the 100% guarantee I don’t think they’d have needed to go to court re the £4.85 million.

I’m basing this on the fact they were given permission to send monies in March ‘24 without a judge ordering the authorities to allow this*

With all this in mind, whilst the May case included a request for funds to be sent, I think their main motivation for the appeal was the removal of the guarantee.

* I also have a slight recollection of a poster on here saying Pasha had confirmed a ‘deal had been done’.

I’m presuming that deal was along the lines of  ‘if you keep to the current court conditions well give you permission’ 

I wouldn’t want to rely on that source though (Pasha, not whoever that poster was 😁).

 

 

My understanding of the situation:

Law requires NOC from ED to send funds due to venkys being under investigation 

ED rejectes venkys application for NOC

Venkys go to court to challenge the decision 

Judge rules on a compromise whereby certain criteria are met for the granting of a NOC (100% guarantee, end user certificate etc)

Venkys start new case challenging the bond

It is agreed to reduce the amount to 50%

 

[wilsdenrover]

14 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

My understanding of the situation:

Law requires NOC from ED to send funds due to venkys being under investigation ✔️

ED rejectes venkys application for NOC✔️

Venkys go to court to challenge the decision ✔️

Judge rules on a compromise whereby certain criteria are met for the granting of a NOC (100% guarantee, end user certificate etc)✔️

Venkys start new case challenging the bond✔️

It is agreed to reduce the amount to 50%✔️

 I feel like a teacher 😁 (have a gold star ⭐️😁) 

 

 

[lraC]

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

 

At least there is no impediment. 😂