Tag: K Kavitha

  • BRS leader K Kavitha taken into custody, say reports

    Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) MLC K Kavitha was taken into custody on Friday evening. The development came hours after Income Tax Department (I-T) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials conducted searches at her Hyderabad residence, according to media reports. Earlier on Friday, at least 10 officers from both agencies from New Delhi had conducted searches in the presence of Kavitha and her husband D Anil Kumar.

    It was not clear if the action is linked to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy linked case of the central agency in which the ED has questioned the BRS MLC and daughter of former Telangana chief minister Chandrashekar Rao, PTI reported citing official sources.

    The ED had claimed Kavitha was linked to a “South Group” lobby of liquor traders who were trying to play a larger role under the now scrapped Delhi excise policy for 2021-22.Reacting to the searches, BRS spokesperson Sravan Dasoju alleged that the raids were politically motivated and both BJP and Congress are hand-in-glove to harass leaders of the K Chandrasekhar Rao-led party.

    “Wherever ( Prime Minister Narendra) Modi goes ED and IT ( Income Tax) either precedes or succeeds. That is what is happening in Telangana. They want to create a panic situation in the BRS. The ED and IT which are working at the behest of BJP are not bothered about the Congress leaders of Telangana who have illegally obtained so much wealth,” the BRS leader told PTI.

    Sravan sought to know why the BJP is “tightlipped” on the cases against Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy.“We believe in Satyameva Jayate. Let the truth prevail. We are not saying that IT and ED should not do their jobs, but the selectiveness is vindictiveness. Just before the elections, they are trying to do this mudslinging to dent the image of the BRS,” he added.The Enforcement Directorate has alleged that one of the accused in the case, Vijay Nair, received kickbacks to the tune of at least Rs 100 crore from the “South Group” (allegedly controlled by Sarath Reddy, Kavitha and Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy) on behalf of leaders of the AAP.

    (With inputs from PTI)

  • Delhi liquor policy case: No relief from Supreme Court for BRS leader K Kavitha

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: BRS leader K Kavitha who had approached the Supreme Court challenging the summons issued to appear at the ED’s New Delhi office in relation to the Delhi liquor policy case did not get any relief as the top court on Monday tagged her plea with other similar pending petitions.

    Her plea was tagged by a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi with a petition that was preferred by Nalini Chidambaram, a senior advocate and wife of former Union minister P Chidambaram in the Saradha chit fund case in 2018. The court also adjourned the matter for three weeks.

    Kavitha, in her plea while challenging the summons, had sought certain protections to her during the questioning and sought directions to the investigating officers to that effect.

    Appearing for Kavitha, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said although she in the complaint was not shown as an accused, the summons issued to her under section 160 CrPC was for an investigation. He said, “He (ED) says that it’s an inquiry but I’m being investigated. The summons is for investigation.”

    She had contended that the investigation against her was nothing more than a fishing expedition being undertaken by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) solely at the behest of the ruling political party. It was also argued that although she was not named in the FIR registered by the CBI alleging irregularities in the Delhi excise policy, certain members of the ruling political party at the Centre made scandalous statements linking her to the policy and the FIR.

    ALSO READ: Delhi excise policy case: BRS leader Kavitha appears before ED, surrenders phones to agency

    “The Enforcement Directorate, in teeth of settled law, summoned her to appear before their offices in New Delhi and has confiscated her cellular phone without any written order for production of the said phone,” the plea stated.

    She in her plea has also contended that she was forced to produce her cell phone whereas she was summoned under Sections 50(2), 50(3) PMLA which do not require production of the phone.

    “There is no case against the petitioner. The only basis on which the petitioner has been implicated is on basis of certain statement of few persons who have given incriminating statement qua themselves as well as allegedly against the petitioner. However, such statements have been extracted out of threat and coercion, which is evident from the fact that on 10.03.2023, one Mr. Arun Ramachandran Pillai, has retracted his statement. The credibility of the statements purported to be against the petitioner is under serious doubt,” the plea also stated.

    The ED had earlier filed a caveat in the Supreme Court wherein it had urged the SC not to pass any orders until it hears the federal probe agency.

    Although she was grilled by the ED on March 11 in the money laundering case and was summoned by the ED again for the third time on March 16, since the SC had agreed to list her plea on March 24, she had skipped the March 16 summons. She in turn had sent her authorised representative Soma Bharath (a BRS party office bearer) who handed over to the investigating officer of the case a six-page representation against her deposition along with her bank statement, personal and business details. Since she had skipped the summons, she was again grilled by the ED for more than 10 hours on March 20 and was also summoned on March 21.

    NEW DELHI: BRS leader K Kavitha who had approached the Supreme Court challenging the summons issued to appear at the ED’s New Delhi office in relation to the Delhi liquor policy case did not get any relief as the top court on Monday tagged her plea with other similar pending petitions.

    Her plea was tagged by a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi with a petition that was preferred by Nalini Chidambaram, a senior advocate and wife of former Union minister P Chidambaram in the Saradha chit fund case in 2018. The court also adjourned the matter for three weeks.

    Kavitha, in her plea while challenging the summons, had sought certain protections to her during the questioning and sought directions to the investigating officers to that effect.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    Appearing for Kavitha, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said although she in the complaint was not shown as an accused, the summons issued to her under section 160 CrPC was for an investigation. He said, “He (ED) says that it’s an inquiry but I’m being investigated. The summons is for investigation.”

    She had contended that the investigation against her was nothing more than a fishing expedition being undertaken by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) solely at the behest of the ruling political party. It was also argued that although she was not named in the FIR registered by the CBI alleging irregularities in the Delhi excise policy, certain members of the ruling political party at the Centre made scandalous statements linking her to the policy and the FIR.

    ALSO READ: Delhi excise policy case: BRS leader Kavitha appears before ED, surrenders phones to agency

    “The Enforcement Directorate, in teeth of settled law, summoned her to appear before their offices in New Delhi and has confiscated her cellular phone without any written order for production of the said phone,” the plea stated.

    She in her plea has also contended that she was forced to produce her cell phone whereas she was summoned under Sections 50(2), 50(3) PMLA which do not require production of the phone.

    “There is no case against the petitioner. The only basis on which the petitioner has been implicated is on basis of certain statement of few persons who have given incriminating statement qua themselves as well as allegedly against the petitioner. However, such statements have been extracted out of threat and coercion, which is evident from the fact that on 10.03.2023, one Mr. Arun Ramachandran Pillai, has retracted his statement. The credibility of the statements purported to be against the petitioner is under serious doubt,” the plea also stated.

    The ED had earlier filed a caveat in the Supreme Court wherein it had urged the SC not to pass any orders until it hears the federal probe agency.

    Although she was grilled by the ED on March 11 in the money laundering case and was summoned by the ED again for the third time on March 16, since the SC had agreed to list her plea on March 24, she had skipped the March 16 summons. She in turn had sent her authorised representative Soma Bharath (a BRS party office bearer) who handed over to the investigating officer of the case a six-page representation against her deposition along with her bank statement, personal and business details. Since she had skipped the summons, she was again grilled by the ED for more than 10 hours on March 20 and was also summoned on March 21.