http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/trinamool-mp-kd-singh-s-company-alchemist-infra-realty-under-scrutiny-358758
http://www.moneylife.in/article/west-bengals-chit-fund-mess-and-inaction-of-mca/32336.html
I was in the High Court of Delhi on 03.04.2013 for IAC's CBI matter to come up for hearing and observing when one of the cases of this high profile group ALCHEMIST (of Republic of Chicken fame) was being decided.
They had brought in big gun seniors like Soli Sorabjee (BTW, he was fumbling quite a bit), Rajiv Nayyar etc. The Union of India was making out a very powerful counter case to hammer this group but all the group wanted DESPERATELY was TIME ( .. as a court veteran I can read the signals ... ) which they have now got till September.
It seems (from what I could make out in court) the problem is that RBI has issued a letter / certificate declaring / clarifying this group is a NBFC and the Union of India was arguing that it was not possible (and also the Alchemist grp was admitting it) as Alchemist states it does not accept public deposits. So the whole argument was "How could RBI have issued such a letter" and who has complained to the RBI, SEBI, MoF etc ?
I could also sense that the Govt advocates were under some sort of pressure / prior agreement not to argue this case vigorously but to give them the time they needed.
So I would like to know / guided, with caselaw, If a NBFC must always accept take public money or not, and if RBI can issue such a certificate? It seemed in the Court that the Co. has a large amount of funds in its accounts and some insider complaints have been made.
Sarbajit
Here is the text of the order for that day
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=66811&yr=2013
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 2099/2013 and CM No. 3983/2013
ALCHEMIST HOLDINGS LTD AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Soli Sorabjee and Mr RajivNayar, Sr. Advs. with Mr Prateek Jalan, Mr Darpan Wadhwa, Mr Surendra Dube, Mrs Sonia Dube, Mr S. Chakraborty and Ms M. Mehta, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Neeraj Chaudhary, CGSC with Mr Akshay Chandra and Mr Ravjyot Singh, Advs. with Mr Atma Sah, Astt. ROC.
Ms Maneesha Dhir, Ms Geeta Sharma, Ms Mithu Jain and Ms Priya Singh, Advs. for R- 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
03.04.2013
Issue notice.
Mr Chaudhary accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1, while Ms Dhir accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.
With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ
petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
By this writ petition challenge is laid to the show cause notice
(SCN) dated 17.01.2013 issued under Sections 629A and 73(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short the said Act) for alleged violation of provisions of Section 67(3) and 73 of the said Act and the order dated 17.01.2013 passed under Section 234(1) of the said Act. The impugned SCN and order is appended as Annexures P-1 and P-2.
After hearing counsels for the parties, the writ petition is
disposed of with the following agreed terms:
(i) In so far as the SCN dated 17.01.2013 is concerned the noticees shall file their replies to the SCN within two weeks from today.
(ii) Before proceeding further in the matter, the respondents will
decide the issue of jurisdiction, since it is the case of the petitioners that, petitioner no. 1 being a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), it is exempted from the rigour of Section 67 by virtue of the provisions of the second proviso to Section 67(3) of the Act.
(iii) In so far as the order dated 17.01.2013 is concerned (Annexure P- 2), the respondents shall not proceed further, that is, seek information and explanations, which are adverted to in the said order, till after, it accords a hearing to petitioner no. 1. For this purpose the concerned authority shall issue a notice to petitioner no. 1. The notice shall indicate the date, time and venue at which the hearing will be held in the matter. A reasonable opportunity to file a reply shall be accorded to petitioner no. 1.
(iv) It is only after a decision is taken by the respondents, that any further steps will be taken by the respondents, if necessary, under the provisions of Section 234 of the Act.
(v) The respondents will supply to the petitioner any material
available with them on which they wish to rely, which would
necessarily not include the identity of the person who would have
supplied the information/ material in the first instance.
Needless to say any order passed, will be communicated to the
petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions in
place.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
APRIL 03, 2013
kk "
http://www.moneylife.in/article/west-bengals-chit-fund-mess-and-inaction-of-mca/32336.html
I was in the High Court of Delhi on 03.04.2013 for IAC's CBI matter to come up for hearing and observing when one of the cases of this high profile group ALCHEMIST (of Republic of Chicken fame) was being decided.
They had brought in big gun seniors like Soli Sorabjee (BTW, he was fumbling quite a bit), Rajiv Nayyar etc. The Union of India was making out a very powerful counter case to hammer this group but all the group wanted DESPERATELY was TIME ( .. as a court veteran I can read the signals ... ) which they have now got till September.
It seems (from what I could make out in court) the problem is that RBI has issued a letter / certificate declaring / clarifying this group is a NBFC and the Union of India was arguing that it was not possible (and also the Alchemist grp was admitting it) as Alchemist states it does not accept public deposits. So the whole argument was "How could RBI have issued such a letter" and who has complained to the RBI, SEBI, MoF etc ?
I could also sense that the Govt advocates were under some sort of pressure / prior agreement not to argue this case vigorously but to give them the time they needed.
So I would like to know / guided, with caselaw, If a NBFC must always accept take public money or not, and if RBI can issue such a certificate? It seemed in the Court that the Co. has a large amount of funds in its accounts and some insider complaints have been made.
Sarbajit
Here is the text of the order for that day
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=66811&yr=2013
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 2099/2013 and CM No. 3983/2013
ALCHEMIST HOLDINGS LTD AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Soli Sorabjee and Mr RajivNayar, Sr. Advs. with Mr Prateek Jalan, Mr Darpan Wadhwa, Mr Surendra Dube, Mrs Sonia Dube, Mr S. Chakraborty and Ms M. Mehta, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Neeraj Chaudhary, CGSC with Mr Akshay Chandra and Mr Ravjyot Singh, Advs. with Mr Atma Sah, Astt. ROC.
Ms Maneesha Dhir, Ms Geeta Sharma, Ms Mithu Jain and Ms Priya Singh, Advs. for R- 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
03.04.2013
Issue notice.
Mr Chaudhary accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1, while Ms Dhir accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.
With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ
petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
By this writ petition challenge is laid to the show cause notice
(SCN) dated 17.01.2013 issued under Sections 629A and 73(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short the said Act) for alleged violation of provisions of Section 67(3) and 73 of the said Act and the order dated 17.01.2013 passed under Section 234(1) of the said Act. The impugned SCN and order is appended as Annexures P-1 and P-2.
After hearing counsels for the parties, the writ petition is
disposed of with the following agreed terms:
(i) In so far as the SCN dated 17.01.2013 is concerned the noticees shall file their replies to the SCN within two weeks from today.
(ii) Before proceeding further in the matter, the respondents will
decide the issue of jurisdiction, since it is the case of the petitioners that, petitioner no. 1 being a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), it is exempted from the rigour of Section 67 by virtue of the provisions of the second proviso to Section 67(3) of the Act.
(iii) In so far as the order dated 17.01.2013 is concerned (Annexure P- 2), the respondents shall not proceed further, that is, seek information and explanations, which are adverted to in the said order, till after, it accords a hearing to petitioner no. 1. For this purpose the concerned authority shall issue a notice to petitioner no. 1. The notice shall indicate the date, time and venue at which the hearing will be held in the matter. A reasonable opportunity to file a reply shall be accorded to petitioner no. 1.
(iv) It is only after a decision is taken by the respondents, that any further steps will be taken by the respondents, if necessary, under the provisions of Section 234 of the Act.
(v) The respondents will supply to the petitioner any material
available with them on which they wish to rely, which would
necessarily not include the identity of the person who would have
supplied the information/ material in the first instance.
Needless to say any order passed, will be communicated to the
petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions in
place.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
APRIL 03, 2013
kk "
No comments:
Post a Comment