ED's application, filed through prosecutor N K Matta, had requested the court to direct the accused for his physical appearance in the case which is at its final stage.
A Delhi court on Friday asked liquor baron Vijay Mallya to file a proper reply to ED's plea seeking to withdraw the exemption granted to him from personal appearance in a case lodged for allegedly evading summons in connection with purported violation of foreign exchange rules.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Sumit Dass passed the order after noting that the reply filed by the accused, through his lawyer, did not bear Mallya's signatures.
The court fixed the matter for May 28 for further hearing after his counsel said that papers having Mallya's signature were awaited.
The court had in December 2000, allowed Mallya's plea seeking permanent exemption from personal appearance.
ED's application, filed through prosecutor N K Matta, had requested the court to direct the accused for his physical appearance in the case which is at its final stage.
ED has also sought issuance of non-bailable warrant against the Chairman of now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines to secure his presence in the ongoing trial of the case.
In his reply filed today through the lawyer, the accused has sought dismissal of the application filed by ED but the court did not accept the response due to lack of Mallya's signature.
"The physical appearance of the accused is not required at the stage of final arguments since a duly authorised counsel on his behalf has been appearing before the court on each date of hearing," the reply said.
"The accused has diligently complied with all the directions of this court. It is also evident from the record that there is neither any allegation against the accused for violating the directions of this court nor any misuse of the liberty granted by this court at any stage of trial.
"Therefore, the application filed by the complainant (ED) seeking physical appearance of the accused is completely misplaced, untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of law," it said.
The court had issued notice to Mallya on ED's plea which claimed that the accused was not joining the probe and the exemption granted to him must be recalled.
ED's plea has said Mallya was reported to be in the United Kingdom and his presence in the ongoing trial of this case was essential and sought the court's direction to him to remain personally present in every hearing.
The agency has urged the court to "withdraw the exemption given from personal appearance of the accused and to issue non-bailable warrant to secure the presence of the accused in the ongoing trial".
Earlier, Matta had argued that the court should recall its December 2000 order by which Mallya was granted permanent exemption from personal appearance as a PMLA court in Mumbai has recently issued an open-ended warrant against Mallya in connection with a money laundering case.
In this case, ED had alleged that Mallya had violated the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) in arranging funds to advertise his company's liquor products abroad.
ED had claimed that Mallya was summoned on four occasions for questioning in connection with a contract signed in December 1995 with London-based firm Benetton Formula Ltd for promotion of the Kingfisher brand abroad.
When Mallya failed to appear before ED in response to the summons, a complaint was filed on March 8, 2000 before a court in New Delhi and later on charge was framed against him under FERA.
According to ED, Mallya had allegedly paid $200,000 to the British firm for displaying Kingfisher logo in Formula One World Championships in London and some European countries in 1996, 1997 and 1998.
The agency had claimed that the money was allegedly paid without prior approval from RBI in violation of FERA norms.
