A company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman owes £39m in tax on top of the £148m it was ordered to pay the government for breaching a contract to supply PPE.

Documents filed by PPE Medpro’s administrator on Tuesday revealed the figure owed to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

Last month a court ruled the company breached a contract to supply medical gowns during the Covid pandemic because they did not meet certification requirements for sterility.

HMRC and the administrators declined to comment.

PPE Medpro was put into administration last month, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the government would pursue the company “with everything we’ve got” to recover the cash.

PPE Medpro has £672,774 available to unsecured creditors, far less than the money owed to the DHSC, the administrators’ filings show.

They also reveal that the debt to the government is even bigger than previously known.

During the outbreak of the Covid pandemic in 2020, the government scrambled to secure supplies of PPE as the country went into lockdown and hospitals across the country were reporting shortages of clothing and accessories to protect medics from the virus.

In May that year, PPE Medpro was set up by a consortium led by Baroness Mone’s husband, Doug Barrowman, and won its first government contract to supply masks through a so-called VIP lane after being recommended by Baroness Mone.

The Department of Health and Social Care sued PPE Medpro and won damages over claims the company breached its contract to supply medical gowns.

Mr Barrowman told the BBC in an interview in 2023 that he was the ultimate beneficial owner of PPE Medpro. The shares are held in the name of an accountant, Arthur Lancaster, according to Companies House documents.

In that same interview he admitted receiving more than £60m in profits from PPE Medpro.

Baroness Mone, best known for founding the lingerie company Ultimo, admitted that millions of pounds from those profits were put into a trust from which she and her children stood to benefit.

An Isle of Man company linked to Mr Barrowman, Angelo (PTC), has a secured debt of £1m to the PPE Medpro, which means it is likely to rank ahead of government creditors when it comes to paying out whatever cash can be recovered from the company.

The administrators’ report says it expects there will be enough money to repay this in full.

Filings in the Isle of Man show the beneficial owner of Angelo (PTC) is Knox House Trust, part of Barrowman’s Knox group of companies.

Arthur Lancaster and a spokesperson for Doug Barrowman did not respond to requests for comment.

Investors who started a monthly SIP of Rs 10,000 in some of India’s top equity mutual funds 25 years ago would have turned their investments into crores today, according to an analysis by ETMutualFunds. The study covered 36 equity mutual funds that have completed 25 years in the market, excluding hybrid, sectoral, and thematic schemes, to show the long-term wealth-creation potential of consistent SIP investing.Nippon India Growth Mid Cap Fund (earlier Nippon India Growth Fund) led the list, turning a Rs 10,000 monthly SIP into Rs 8.81 crore over 25 years, with an XIRR of 22.14%. Franklin India Mid Cap Fund (earlier Franklin India Prima Fund) grew the same SIP contribution to Rs 6.52 crore, delivering an XIRR of 20.32%. HDFC Flexi Cap Fund (erstwhile HDFC Equity Fund) converted the monthly investment into Rs 5.91 crore, with an XIRR of 19.72%.

Strong performers from SBI, Franklin, and HDFC funds

Three SBI Mutual Fund schemes also delivered impressive returns. SBI Contra Fund (previously SBI Magnum Contra), SBI ELSS Tax Saver Fund (previously SBI Long Term Equity Fund), and SBI Large & Midcap Fund (previously SBI Magnum Multiplier Fund) turned a Rs 10,000 monthly SIP into between Rs 5.02 crore and Rs 5.81 crore over 25 years.Other top performers included Franklin India Flexi Cap Fund (earlier Franklin India Equity Fund), which grew the SIP to Rs 4.75 crore with an 18.40% XIRR. ELSS funds HDFC ELSS Tax Saver (earlier HDFC TaxSaver) and ICICI Pru ELSS Tax Saver Fund (earlier ICICI Pru LT Equity Fund) delivered Rs 4.70 crore and Rs 4.69 crore respectively. ICICI Pru Large & Mid Cap Fund (earlier ICICI Pru Top 100 Fund) returned Rs 3.93 crore with an XIRR of 17.24%.Funds from Quant Mutual Fund and Sundaram Mutual Fund also performed well. Quant Small Cap Fund (earlier Quant Income Bond) and Quant ELSS Tax Saver Fund (earlier Quant Tax Plan) turned a Rs 10,000 SIP into Rs 3.37 crore and Rs 3.35 crore, with XIRRs of 16.31% and 16.26%. Sundaram ELSS Tax Saver Fund (earlier Sundaram Tax Savings Fund) and Sundaram Multi Cap Fund (earlier Principal Multi Cap Growth Fund) delivered Rs 3.20 crore and Rs 3.09 crore respectively. LIC MF Flexi Cap Fund (earlier LIC MF Multi Cap Fund) was at the lower end, with Rs 1.55 crore and an XIRR of 11.47%.

Fund history and methodology

Among the 36 schemes, 18 funds have completed over 30 years in the market, while the rest have been in existence between 25.04 years and 29.62 years. The SIP performance was calculated from 4 November 2000 to 4 November 2025, considering only regular and growth options.It’s important to note that the exercise by ET is not a recommendation. “The exercise was done to find if an investor who made a SIP of Rs 10,000 25 years ago, what would have been the value of that investment now. One should not make investment or redemption decisions based on the above exercise. One should always make investment decisions based on their risk tolerance, investment horizon, and financial goals,” the report said.(Disclaimer: Recommendations and views on the stock market, other asset classes or personal finance management tips given by experts are their own. These opinions do not represent the views of The Times of India)

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled that expatriates working in Indian companies must become members of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and contribute to the fund regardless of their income levels.The court upheld amendments to the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as well as the Centre’s 2008 and 2010 notifications that mandate international workers to contribute to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF).Under the ruling, international workers will be allowed to withdraw their full EPF balance only after retiring at or after the age of 58, or in cases of permanent and total incapacity. This is seen as a setback for expatriates who generally work in India for shorter periods of two to five years, reported ET. Indian workers, by comparison, are required to contribute if they earn below Rs 15,000 per month. Legal experts noted that many foreign employees have already left India, meaning employers will now have to bear their share of contributions.A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the distinction between foreign and Indian employees was justified. The court accepted the government’s position that international workers form a separate group because they contribute only during their limited time in India, unlike domestic employees who contribute throughout their service.“The classification made was reasonable and it also has an object sought to be achieved that the purpose of mandating an employee to be a member of 1952 scheme was to provide social security,” the court said, as quoted by ET.The court also upheld EPFO communications directing SpiceJet and LG Electronics India to deposit provident fund and related dues for their international staff. It dismissed SpiceJet’s challenge to summons issued in 2012 requiring it to produce records for determining liabilities, and similarly rejected objections raised by LG Electronics.The Delhi High Court’s ruling aligns with a previous judgment of the Bombay High Court, while the Karnataka High Court has ruled to the contrary. Due to the conflicting views, the matter is expected to reach the Supreme Court for final interpretation. Both companies are assessing the implications and are likely to move to the Supreme Court, according to legal sources.Atul Sharma, counsel for SpiceJet, said, “The entire basis of amendment to the scheme is implementation to certain treaties with countries who have similar provision for social security. And under the Constitution of India, this amendment could not be implemented as treaties have not been ratified by Parliament.” He said the issue requires further consideration.The companies had argued that the classification between foreign and Indian employees was discriminatory.