Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts emerging from the Appeals are:

(a) On receipt of information, inquiries were initiated by the Gaikwad RD 8/28 901-911-FEMA-1-2020+-J.doc Mumbai Zonal Office of the Directorate of Enforcement in the functioning of the Twenty-Twenty cricket tournament popularly known as 'the Indian Premier League' ("IPL") organized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India ("BCCI"). BCCI was called upon to furnish certain information on the basis on which, it was felt that there were large scale irregularities in the conduct and functioning of the IPL and its franchisees. A comprehensive investigation revealed certain irregularities in the context of Respondents.
(b) The process of allotting ownership of teams for IPL commenced by floating an Invitation to Tender ("ITT") to any person to submit a bid to own and operate a team for participation in the IPL. The bidders were required to choose from eight locations to operate their teams, viz., Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Mohali and Jaipur. The person being awarded ownership of a team is known as a 'franchisee.' Each successful bidder would be allotted only one team. Several criteria with respect to eligibility and fitness were stipulated and laid down in the ITT. One such criteria was the performance deposit of US$5 million equivalent to Rs. 20 Crores.

3. The present Appeals relate to the deposits from various sources made during the bidding process by Jaipur IPL Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors and Promoters, the Respondents herein which were held to be in contravention of the various provisions of FEMA and the regulations made thereunder.

 Gaikwad RD




                                9/28                  901-911-FEMA-1-2020+-J.doc

4. One Emerging Media IPL Ltd., UK submitted a bid of US$ 67 millions (Rs.268 Crs.) for a team at Jaipur. This amount was to be paid in ten equal installments over a period of ten years. The franchise for Jaipur was known as 'Rajasthan Royals'. The franchise agreement was signed by Jaipur IPL Cricket Pvt. Ltd. ("JIPL") and the BCCI. Fraiser Castellino, the then CEO of JIPL ( Respondent in FEMA Appeal No.8 of 2021) executed the agreement on behalf of JIPL and one Lalit Modi, Vice President of BCCI and Chairman of IPL executed the same on behalf of BCCI.

5. The performance deposit of Rs.20,19,87,410.23 for JIPL was transferred from UK to the account of BCCI-IPL with HDFC Bank, Chennai. The said amount was transferred by one Manoj Badale (Respondent in FEMA Appeal No.2 of 2020) from UK on behalf of Emerging Media IPL Ltd. Subsequently, the franchise agreement was signed on 14th April 2008 and the balance deposit money, i.e., US$773,480.99 after the auction was paid by one EM Sporting Holdings Ltd., Mauritius ("EMSH") (Respondent in FEMA Appeal No.7 of 2021) to BCCI. Thus, Manoj Badale and EMSH together paid a total amount of Rs.23,49,27.410/-. The documents furnished by JIPL clearly showed that JIPL was a wholly owned subsidiary of EMSH. The date of incorporation of EMSH was 5 th May 2008 and that of JIPL was 8th March 2008. The paid-up capital of the company at incorporation was Rs.1 Crore having 10000 shares. Ranjit Gaikwad RD 10/28 901-911-FEMA-1-2020+-J.doc Barthakur (Respondent in FEMA Appeal No.1 of 2021) and Fraiser Castellino, both Directors of JIPL owned 5000 shares each. Ranjit Barthakur sold 4990 shares to EMSH, Mauritius and Fraiser sold 5000 shares to EM Sporting Holdings, Mauritius. From the details of the foreign investments of JIPL, it was revealed that JIPL also received foreign investments through Axis Bank, Fort, Mumbai. The investments totaling Rs.9,73,18,034/- were shown as Foreign Direct Investment ("FDI") in India in equity. JIPL had filed an application seeking approval from the Reserve Bank of India ("RBI") for issuing shares to EMSH, Mauritius which was paid by Manoj Badale and EMSH, Mauritius to BCCI towards performance deposit and franchise fees. RBI refused permission and conveyed clearly that an Indian company receiving share subscription from a person resident outside India by mode of payment other than that indicated in paragraph 8 of Schedule I to a notification dated 3rd May 2000 and capitalization of pre-incorporation of expenses required prior approval of Foreign Investment Promotion Board ("FIPB") for issue of shares to a foreign investor. JIPL also received additional foreign investments from Manoj Badale and one ND Investments LLP, UK Ltd. (Respondent in FEMA Appeal No.2 of 2021). These investments of Manoj Badale and ND Investments LLP were also shown as FDI in India in equity. Thus, it was alleged by the Enforcement Directorate that JIPL and its promoters (as named above) contravened the provisions of FEMA Gaikwad RD 11/28 901-911-FEMA-1-2020+-J.doc and accordingly, four separate show cause notices dated 13 th April 2011 were issued by the Special Director of Enforcement to JIPL and its promoters, i.e., Respondents herein. Show cause notices were issued to JIPL for the following contraventions: