9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 705 - HC - FEMAForeign Direct Investment Policy - permit foreign investment by a foreign airline - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the decision passed by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India approving M/s Air Asia Investment Ltd. (a Malaysian Company) to incorporate a new Joint Venture Company with foreign equity of 49% amounting to USD 15 Million and the balance 51% equity share was to be held in the ratio of 30% by M/s Tata Sons Ltd. and 21% by M/s Telestra Trade Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT - It is stated that the name of Air Asia (India) Pvt. Ltd. was changed to AIX Connect Pvt. Ltd. It is also stated that on 12.08.2020, Talace Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated as 100% wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. which holds 100% shares of Air India Ltd. Material on record further discloses that vide an Order dated 11.07.2019, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was impleaded as Respondent No.6 in the writ petition and the CBI was directed to file the Status Report in a sealed cover. Similarly, this Court vide Order dated 23.01.2020, permitted the Petitioner to implead Enforcement Directorate (ED), Ministry of Finance as Respondent No.8 and the ED was also directed to file the Status Report in a sealed cover. Status Reports in sealed covers have been filed before this Court and this Court has perused the Status Reports. In view of the fact that there is no foreign investment as of today, the prayers made in the writ petition have become purely academic. The Petitioner, who appears in person, has stated that he is no longer interested in pursuing the writ petition. In view of the statement made by the Petitioner appearing in person, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to a decision approving a joint venture company with foreign equity, based on alleged violations of Foreign Direct Investment Policy and guidelines by the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation. The petitioner sought various writs to set aside the decision, prohibit actions contrary to FDI policy, define terms "substantial ownership" and "effective control," investigate the decision-making process, and issue further directions. Details of the Judgment: Violation of FDI Policy and Guidelines: The petitioner challenged a decision approving a joint venture company with foreign equity, alleging violations of the Foreign Direct Investment Policy and guidelines by the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation. The decision allowed M/s Air Asia Investment Ltd. to form a new joint venture company with foreign equity of 49%, which the petitioner contended was contrary to the FDI Policy of the Government of India and objections by the Nodal Ministry. Prayers of the Petitioner: The petitioner sought various reliefs, including setting aside the impugned decision, revoking any further approvals based on it, prohibiting actions against FDI policy, defining "substantial ownership" and "effective control," investigating the decision, and issuing necessary directions. The petitioner also filed an application for stay, which was rejected by the Court. Changes in Shareholding: Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, significant changes occurred in the shareholding of Air Asia (India) Pvt. Ltd. The shareholding structure was revised multiple times, with Tata Sons Ltd., Air Asia Investment Ltd., and Telestra Tradeplace Pvt. Ltd. holding varying percentages of shares at different points in time. Disposal of the Writ Petition: As there was no foreign investment at the time of the judgment, the petitioner expressed disinterest in pursuing the writ petition. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition based on the petitioner's statement. The sealed cover reports submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) were re-sealed and handed over to their respective counsels. This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues raised in the judgment, the contentions of the petitioner, the changes in shareholding, and the ultimate disposal of the writ petition.
|
