Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 13/1/2025 - Re-Arranged Challenge Match

[phili]

34 minutes ago, J*B said:

If the judge managed 16 cases today before walking out for another commitment and we where item number 36, what happens next time if he does another 16 cases before calling it a day i.e. gets to number 32? Another delay, you would assume?

Would love to hear the @RoversTrust ask this question, in addition to a question on the 98% successful prosecution rate if @phili can source it. 

I will dig the link out for you tonight and post to the thread.

Edited August 20 by phili

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, ruggles1995 said:

what an absolute stinker this is. 

End of the day though they CAN still fund us. Just means any new money needed on top of whatever's in the bank needs to be paid in double due to the guarantee. Lets not forget they can still fund us if they WISH (which of course means they wont).

Worse case scenario here is that we don't get sanctioned to spend anymore on new signings as they wont want to double the money for the guarantee, if they need to add more into the bank. Lets hope we can still get a few in. I fully expect us to max out the loan market either way which means another 4 in at least. We defo need minimum 4 more bodies in the door. 

I am still confident the lights will always be on, for whatever silly reason they still seem to want to. 

There is a bit of confusion on this bond or guarantee thing, if it's a guarantee then they aren't paying double they or their bank just has to put up a cast iron guarantee of matching funds.

A few ways that could be done without them paying an extra rupee but if it's a bond then obviously it's double bubble with one wedge sent and the other held until the first lot is accounted for.

A guarantee though shouldn't be a problem to them.

[RevidgeBlue]

16 minutes ago, phili said:

The default position is they can't, each time they ask for permission it is a new case and despite what Waggot says each request is reviewed independently and no president set. 

I did suspect that was the case and that Waggott was talking complete shite about a precedent having been set, because if that was the case then you'd think there'd be no need to have to forensically  itemise in such detail each and every item of expenditure requested.

[tomphil]

Waggot talks shite it's plain and simple, the training ground, court case, funding, new bus.....

How many examples are there ?

I also questioned last time just how hard Vs lawyers are pushing this, i very much suspect not very hard at all and it's marked non urgent.

No way this sees the light of day before the end of the next window in Jan, everything these lot are involved in is smoke and mirrors. Probably sell Yuki for a quick profit in January if he keeps up his goalscoring.

[miqaayil]

3 minutes ago, tomphil said:

There is a bit of confusion on this bond or guarantee thing, if it's a guarantee then they aren't paying double they or their bank just has to put up a cast iron guarantee of matching funds.

A few ways that could be done without them paying an extra rupee but if it's a bond then obviously it's double bubble with one wedge sent and the other held until the first lot is accounted for.

A guarantee though shouldn't be a problem to them.

Guys its not bond per say ...

 

The funds that venky's been sending over and bought us with is funds from SBI facilities loan, SBI is a india government owned bank and monies are people's money. When they suspect funds sent being used for things not BRFC related is when this whole investigation started. And coupled with straight losses over 10 years , suspicion of funneling arise, further suspicions of is this gonna be bad debt like certain high profile indian businessmen also will arise.So in layman terms what courts is asking , when you send SBI monies , put equivalent your own monies as bond so if you declare bankruptcy in VLL , which causes bad debt , we'll take your bond monies.....

 

which is why i always stand there's never intention to fund us or love for rovers there ...

[lraC]

8 minutes ago, miqaayil said:

Guys its not bond per say ...

 

The funds that venky's been sending over and bought us with is funds from SBI facilities loan, SBI is a india government owned bank and monies are people's money. When they suspect funds sent being used for things not BRFC related is when this whole investigation started. And coupled with straight losses over 10 years , suspicion of funneling arise, further suspicions of is this gonna be bad debt like certain high profile indian businessmen also will arise.So in layman terms what courts is asking , when you send SBI monies , put equivalent your own monies as bond so if you declare bankruptcy in VLL , which causes bad debt , we'll take your bond monies.....

 

which is why i always stand there's never intention to fund us or love for rovers there ...

They have already broken the conditions of the bond, so stand to lose it.

They have stated the funds need to be sent to protect their investment.

I don't know the terminology used for putting money into a loss making venture, but given that every £ seems to to drop to around 25p or less, it is certainly not an investment they are protecting, but propping up an ailing business. 

[Miller11]

The case that was supposed to be heard today is one which Venky’s are the petitioner and the Government department is the respondent. In other words, this is a case brought about by Venky’s against the Indian Ministry of Finance, so any hopes of them being “found guilty” and being forced to sell were absolutely miles off.

It relates purely to them (VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED) wanting to be able to freely remit funds to Venky’s London Ltd. Without going over old ground too much…

Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Ltd have been under investigation since 2021. At some point in 2023 they were denied the no objection certificate they had previously been granted - this is required for any Indian company or individual who is under investigation to send any money abroad.

On August 16 2023 it was stated the full investigation would be concluded in 15 days - it wasn’t, and none of the documents on this case are linked to the investigation. They may be online somewhere but I don’t think so, and I’ve never seen them. Venky’s lawyers also stated on this day that the investigation was entirely separate to this case.

The court eventually allowed remittances with the constraints we all know about. Waggott says that he has been told by Venky’s lawyers the precedent has been set and they can now remit funds whenever they want. The relevant wording is inconclusive to me, I don’t think it’s clear whether this refers just to that one 11 million remittance, or other ongoing amounts too, but I’m no legal expert…

The official line is they want the guarantee removed, not that they can’t send money. I don’t know if they have to go through the rigmarole of applying for and being denied an NOC, then requesting a court date, then fulfilling the previously agreed actions… or whether they can just send money providing it is guaranteed and costed.
 

I’m rushing a bit here. But all the available court docs are here: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/judegment_orders?pno=1148363

Theres quite a few bits that I’d like more clarity on, but we’d probably need the judge or Venky’s lawyers to provide it.

Edited August 20 by Miller11

[lraC]

4 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

The case that was supposed to be heard today is one which Venky’s are the petitioner and the Government department is the respondent. In other words, this is a case brought about by Venky’s against the Indian Ministry of Finance, so any hopes of them being “found guilty” and being forced to sell were absolutely miles off.

It relates purely to them (VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED) wanting to be able to freely remit funds to Venky’s London Ltd. Without going over old ground too much…

Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Ltd have been under investigation since 2021. At some point in 2023 they were denied the no objection certificate they had previously been granted - this is required for any Indian company or individual who is under investigation to send any money abroad.

On August 16 2023 it was stated the full investigation would be concluded in 15 days - it wasn’t, and none of the documents on this case are linked to the investigation. They may be online somewhere but I don’t think so, and I’ve never seen them. Venky’s lawyers also stated on this day that the investigation was entirely separate to this case.

The court eventually allowed remittances with the constraints we all know about. Waggott says that he has been told by Venky’s lawyers the precedent has been set and they can now remit funds whenever they want. The relevant wording is inconclusive to me, but I’m no legal expert…

The official line is they want the guarantee removed, not that they can’t send money. I don’t know if they have to go through the rigmarole of applying for and being denied an NOC, then requesting a court date, then fulfilling the previously agreed actions… or whether they can just send money providing it is guaranteed and costed.
 

I’m rushing a bit here. But all the available court docs are here: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/judegment_orders?pno=1148363

Theres quite a few bits that I’d like more clarity on, but we’d probably need the judge or Cenkys lawyers to provide it.

I guess this come back to the questions I raised earlier, in that was a no objection certificate issued today.

Thanks for posting this Duncan and clearing up a miss conception about what the hearing was about.

I take it the trust are going to check about the NOC with Waggott now and perhaps, question why, he has chosen to state on previous occasions that there is no impediment to them funding, when there clearly is.

Are WATR issuing a statement on the matter?

[wilsdenrover]

7 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

The case that was supposed to be heard today is one which Venky’s are the petitioner and the Government department is the respondent. In other words, this is a case brought about by Venky’s against the Indian Ministry of Finance, so any hopes of them being “found guilty” and being forced to sell were absolutely miles off.

It relates purely to them (VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED) wanting to be able to freely remit funds to Venky’s London Ltd. Without going over old ground too much…

Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Ltd have been under investigation since 2021. At some point in 2023 they were denied the no objection certificate they had previously been granted - this is required for any Indian company or individual who is under investigation to send any money abroad.

On August 16 2023 it was stated the full investigation would be concluded in 15 days - it wasn’t, and none of the documents on this case are linked to the investigation. They may be online somewhere but I don’t think so, and I’ve never seen them. Venky’s lawyers also stated on this day that the investigation was entirely separate to this case.

The court eventually allowed remittances with the constraints we all know about. Waggott says that he has been told by Venky’s lawyers the precedent has been set and they can now remit funds whenever they want. The relevant wording is inconclusive to me, but I’m no legal expert…

The official line is they want the guarantee removed, not that they can’t send money. I don’t know if they have to go through the rigmarole of applying for and being denied an NOC, then requesting a court date, then fulfilling the previously agreed actions… or whether they can just send money providing it is guaranteed and costed.
 

I’m rushing a bit here. But all the available court docs are here: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/judegment_orders?pno=1148363

Theres quite a few bits that I’d like more clarity on, but we’d probably need the judge or Cenkys lawyers to provide it.

Their email address is on the cause list…

[RevidgeBlue]

11 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

The case that was supposed to be heard today is one which Venky’s are the petitioner and the Government department is the respondent. In other words, this is a case brought about by Venky’s against the Indian Ministry of Finance, so any hopes of them being “found guilty” and being forced to sell were absolutely miles off.

It relates purely to them (VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED) wanting to be able to freely remit funds to Venky’s London Ltd. Without going over old ground too much…

Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Ltd have been under investigation since 2021. At some point in 2023 they were denied the no objection certificate they had previously been granted - this is required for any Indian company or individual who is under investigation to send any money abroad.

On August 16 2023 it was stated the full investigation would be concluded in 15 days - it wasn’t, and none of the documents on this case are linked to the investigation. They may be online somewhere but I don’t think so, and I’ve never seen them. Venky’s lawyers also stated on this day that the investigation was entirely separate to this case.

The court eventually allowed remittances with the constraints we all know about. Waggott says that he has been told by Venky’s lawyers the precedent has been set and they can now remit funds whenever they want. The relevant wording is inconclusive to me, but I’m no legal expert…

The official line is they want the guarantee removed, not that they can’t send money. I don’t know if they have to go through the rigmarole of applying for and being denied an NOC, then requesting a court date, then fulfilling the previously agreed actions… or whether they can just send money providing it is guaranteed and costed.
 

I’m rushing a bit here. But all the available court docs are here: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/judegment_orders?pno=1148363

Theres quite a few bits that I’d like more clarity on, but we’d probably need the judge or Cenkys lawyers to provide it.

That does tend to indicate that they CAN in face send money whenever they want as long as they provide the equivalent supporting bond and complete all the relevant paperwork retrospectively.

But as we can see - they clearly aren't doing. Choosing instead to let the Club wash it's own face courtesy of a couple of fortuitously timed sales.

WHICH - imo in many ways is worse than being blocked from doing so.

Edited August 20 by RevidgeBlue

[miqaayil]

4 minutes ago, lraC said:

They have already broken the conditions of the bond, so stand to lose it.

They have stated the funds need to be sent to protect their investment.

I don't know the terminology used for putting money into a loss making venture, but given that every £ seems to to drop to around 25p or less, it is certainly not an investment they are protecting, but propping up an ailing business. 

in my opinion , the jig is up. Only thing remaining is court ordering SBI to suspend the facilities and based on the speed of the judicial system will take another few years but they can as SBI is 60% owned by india government. 

[1864roverite]

As with all cases there will have been agreements come to BEFORE it go j to the court room hence it is likely that Venkys may have got their wishes - if it had been a negative then there would have been legal arguments! The hearing will be the trial date which is unrelated to todays court hearing as has been outlined!

[Norbert Rassragr]

Just read the last page and I guess they won their case and we're stuck with those goons.

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

That does tend to indicate that they CAN in face send money whenever they want as long as they provide the equivalent supporting bond and complete all the relevant paperwork retrospectively.

But as we can see - they clearly aren't doing. Choosing instead to let the Club wash it's own face courtesy of a couple of fortuitously timed sales.

This (from the accounts) makes it pretty clear they think the court will always say yes to funds being sent but they don’t know that for a fact.

What does appear to be clear is Venkys needing the court’s separate permission for any new tranche of money they want to send. 

[lraC]

If a NOC has not been issued today, they cannot send funds, in my opinion, so the big question is, was one issued?

VHL.pdf

[Atko's Engine]

1 hour ago, Giant said:

If you ask me, I think most court cases get dragged out for as long as possible so that lawyers etc etc can make as much money from their clients as possible. Same the world over, apart from rioters in England.

I'm a lawyer here in England, trust me it is not beneficial to us for claims to drag on in my line if work, as not only are we only paid if the litigation succeeds, but also we are by definition only paid at its conclusion, which can be many years from initial instruction. Very rarely will courts makes interim orders for costs.

Can't speak for India, mind...

[tomphil]

34 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

The case that was supposed to be heard today is one which Venky’s are the petitioner and the Government department is the respondent. In other words, this is a case brought about by Venky’s against the Indian Ministry of Finance, so any hopes of them being “found guilty” and being forced to sell were absolutely miles off.

It relates purely to them (VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED) wanting to be able to freely remit funds to Venky’s London Ltd. Without going over old ground too much…

Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Ltd have been under investigation since 2021. At some point in 2023 they were denied the no objection certificate they had previously been granted - this is required for any Indian company or individual who is under investigation to send any money abroad.

On August 16 2023 it was stated the full investigation would be concluded in 15 days - it wasn’t, and none of the documents on this case are linked to the investigation. They may be online somewhere but I don’t think so, and I’ve never seen them. Venky’s lawyers also stated on this day that the investigation was entirely separate to this case.

The court eventually allowed remittances with the constraints we all know about. Waggott says that he has been told by Venky’s lawyers the precedent has been set and they can now remit funds whenever they want. The relevant wording is inconclusive to me, I don’t think it’s clear whether this refers just to that one 11 million remittance, or other ongoing amounts too, but I’m no legal expert…

The official line is they want the guarantee removed, not that they can’t send money. I don’t know if they have to go through the rigmarole of applying for and being denied an NOC, then requesting a court date, then fulfilling the previously agreed actions… or whether they can just send money providing it is guaranteed and costed.
 

I’m rushing a bit here. But all the available court docs are here: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/judegment_orders?pno=1148363

Theres quite a few bits that I’d like more clarity on, but we’d probably need the judge or Venky’s lawyers to provide it.

This needs pinning on the thread because the wires are constantly crossed between 'investigation' and 'approval for funds' which as you've shown are two separate things now although obviously one is born out of the other.

[booth]

So can they send funds or not?

[J*B]

50 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

The case that was supposed to be heard today is one which Venky’s are the petitioner and the Government department is the respondent. In other words, this is a case brought about by Venky’s against the Indian Ministry of Finance, so any hopes of them being “found guilty” and being forced to sell were absolutely miles off.

It relates purely to them (VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED) wanting to be able to freely remit funds to Venky’s London Ltd. Without going over old ground too much…

Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Ltd have been under investigation since 2021. At some point in 2023 they were denied the no objection certificate they had previously been granted - this is required for any Indian company or individual who is under investigation to send any money abroad.

On August 16 2023 it was stated the full investigation would be concluded in 15 days - it wasn’t, and none of the documents on this case are linked to the investigation. They may be online somewhere but I don’t think so, and I’ve never seen them. Venky’s lawyers also stated on this day that the investigation was entirely separate to this case.

The court eventually allowed remittances with the constraints we all know about. Waggott says that he has been told by Venky’s lawyers the precedent has been set and they can now remit funds whenever they want. The relevant wording is inconclusive to me, I don’t think it’s clear whether this refers just to that one 11 million remittance, or other ongoing amounts too, but I’m no legal expert…

The official line is they want the guarantee removed, not that they can’t send money. I don’t know if they have to go through the rigmarole of applying for and being denied an NOC, then requesting a court date, then fulfilling the previously agreed actions… or whether they can just send money providing it is guaranteed and costed.
 

I’m rushing a bit here. But all the available court docs are here: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/judegment_orders?pno=1148363

Theres quite a few bits that I’d like more clarity on, but we’d probably need the judge or Venky’s lawyers to provide it.

I find all of this so interesting. I can't believe its come to this, but it has and its extremely interesting. 

[J*B]

3 minutes ago, booth said:

So can they send funds or not?

Nobody knows! Well, someone must do. But we're here to speculate and i'm going to speculate with: Yes, but its a fucking pain in the arse and expensive. 

[booth]

4 minutes ago, J*B said:

Nobody knows! Well, someone must do. But we're here to speculate and i'm going to speculate with: Yes, but its a fucking pain in the arse and expensive. 

So still having to double up on anything they send then?

[den]

So I wonder why the Indian authorities decided to remove the no objection document.  Did something change or did Venkys chances of winning their case become a bit bleaker. 

Also, if they were to lose that case, would they be able to fund the club at all?

Pardon my ignorance on this. Maybe I’m well off track here.

[Oldgregg86]

30 minutes ago, J*B said:

Nobody knows! Well, someone must do. But we're here to speculate and i'm going to speculate with: Yes, but its a fucking pain in the arse and expensive. 

I think that’s pretty much it in a nutshell

Edited August 20 by Oldgregg86

[miqaayil]

24 minutes ago, booth said:

So still having to double up on anything they send then?

no it's not doubling up, monies they sending over is technically not thiers but the surety they are asked to put up is thiers

[J*B]

2 minutes ago, den said:

So I wonder why the Indian authorities decided to remove the no objection document.  Did something change or did Venkys chances of winning their case become a bit bleaker. 

Also, if they were to lose that case, would they be able to fund the club at all?

Pardon my ignorance on this. Maybe I’m well off track here.

We’re all off track on this one Den. Unless someone’s going to chirp up as a specialist in international law it’s all hearsay. I’ve heard rumours in the past couple of hours about a club statement on the matter - whether that’s official or through The Trust / Fans Forum I don’t care, but clarification needs to be sought.

Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding. If we’re not significantly strengthening with cash signings this summer and retaining what is left of our best players then we will know.