A copy of News published in Times of India on

09-11-2009 and 11-11-2009 are furnished below for information.

With regards,

C. SHANMUGAM.

Times of India dated : 09-11-2009.

City Limo case: Court reserves order till Fri

C Unnikrishnan | TNN

Mumbai: A month after City Limouzines chairman S M Masood moved the sessions court seeking anticipatory bail, on Saturday, the court heard the arguments and reserved its order for November 13.

The defense argued that anticipatory bail has to be granted as it is a civil dispute and they failed to pay because their accounts had been frozen and operations stopped by the police and other authorities.

The prosecution argued that if that were the case, then the banks would have made a remark while dishonoring the cheques. The remarks for not honoring the cheques were “insufficient funds and stop payment’’. This shows that the company has no money in its accounts and funds have been diverted for which investigation has to be carried out. Masood’s custody is hence required, the prosecution said.

Advocate Bhavesh Parmar, who had intervened on behalf of the investors, urged that the arguments should be only on the issue of anticipatory bail. When an anticipatory bail application is moved in the court , the arguments should not encroach on the topic of whether an offence of cheating has been made out. He said Masood, despite giving an undertaking in the court that he would be present, has failed to do so. This is enough for the court to deny anticipatory bail, he said.

Meanwhile, the company has moved the SC seeking relief. “We have not received a copy of his petition. The state has been asked to file its reply in four weeks. We will be able to comment only when we get the copy of the petition,’’ a police officer said.

Times of India : 11-11-2009

Arrest City Limo chief, HC tells cops

C Unnikrishnan | TNN

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday told the police to arrest City Limouzines’ chairman S M Masood. Justice J N Patel said this while dismissing Masood’s writ petition, urging the court to transfer all cases registered in the city to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW).

Justice Patel asked the EOW why the cases were not being investigated and Masood had not been arrested. The police submitted to the court an affidavit, containing details of their efforts to trace him. According to the EOW, it had made “strenuous efforts to trace the petitioner (Masood) but he remained untraceable.’’

The affidavit also mentioned that Masood had filed six petitions in the HC, seeking various reliefs and another six transfer petitions in the Supreme Court . “How do we investigate when we are spending our time running from one court to another?’’ a police officer said.

Masood had also urged the court to issue orders, directing the police to give him 72 hours before the arrest. In the affidavit, EOW said that there was no legal provision for it and Masood had not been cooperating in the investigations according to the Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court , while restoring the FIR, had asked the company to submit the documents for investigation. According to EOW officials, Masood had refused to abide by the SC order.

The affidavit also spoke about the first case registered in 2007, followed by HC orders granting relief to Masood on various counts and culminated in the quashing of the FIR. The SC restored the FIR on an appeal by the state government. The session’s court on Friday will pass its order on the anticipatory bail application filed by Masood.