By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,Jan. 30: The Andhra Pradesh High Court will decide on the plea by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to interrogate the Satyam ex-chairman, B. Ramalinga Raju, and his brother, Rama Raju, only after hearing their version on February 9.
On Friday the High Court heard the arguments on the maintainability of the writ petition filed by Sebi challenging the order passed by the sixth additional chief metropolitan magistrate denying it permission to interrogate the Raju brothers.
Arguing before the High Court, the Solicitor-General, Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, stressed the need to allow Sebi to conduct its probe.
But Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy was not ready to pass an ex-parte order without hearing the Raju brothers.
“We cannot accord any relief without hearing the other side,” he said. “They have favourable orders from the lower court.”
Mr Vahanvati, however, said the lower court has only dismissed the Sebi plea and had not given any favourable order to the Rajus.It had also not given any clean chit to Ramalinga Raju and his brother, he said.
Though Mr Goolam E. Vahnavati said no prejudice would be caused to the cause of accused if Sebi interrogated them for a day, the judge was not amenable.
Later, the judge ordered notice to be served on the Raju brothers through the superintendent of Chanchalguda Central Prison where they have been lodged since January 10.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Kampani files quash petition
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 30: Mr Nimesh N. Kampani, the former financial consultant and promoter-director of Nagarjuna Finance Ltd (NFL) on Friday filed a quash petition in the High Court.
Mr Kampani is wanted by the city police in a cheating case registered against Nagarjuna Finance Ltd on the complaint lodged by the depositors for non-payment of their deposits.
The petitioner contended that he was not responsible as the alleged offences were committed after his resignation from the company on April 28, 1999. The SC advocate, Mr Harish Salve, is most likely to appear on behalf of Kampani on February 2.
Hyderabad, Jan. 30: Mr Nimesh N. Kampani, the former financial consultant and promoter-director of Nagarjuna Finance Ltd (NFL) on Friday filed a quash petition in the High Court.
Mr Kampani is wanted by the city police in a cheating case registered against Nagarjuna Finance Ltd on the complaint lodged by the depositors for non-payment of their deposits.
The petitioner contended that he was not responsible as the alleged offences were committed after his resignation from the company on April 28, 1999. The SC advocate, Mr Harish Salve, is most likely to appear on behalf of Kampani on February 2.
Maytas may lose another project
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 30: Yet another multi-crore rupee project given to Maytas Infra Ltd is being reconsidered by the state government after the Satyam scam.
The Rs 120-crore project which envisages was formed of a road from Mangapatnam to K Sugumanchipalli village in Kadapa district was awarded to the Maytas Infra Ltd in December, 2008 on a nomination basis. Mr P. Narayana Reddy, sarpanch of the Obannapet, and two others filed a petition against the project. Following this, the counsel for the roads and buildings department informed the High Court on Friday that the officials were reconsidering the decision.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice Ramesh Ranganthan recorded the statement of counsel on the request of the petitioners’ counsel P. Veera Reddy.
Counsel further informed that after the Satyam fraud surfaced, the state government decided to reconsider the issue. He said a comprehensive decision would be taken on the project within two weeks.
Hyderabad, Jan. 30: Yet another multi-crore rupee project given to Maytas Infra Ltd is being reconsidered by the state government after the Satyam scam.
The Rs 120-crore project which envisages was formed of a road from Mangapatnam to K Sugumanchipalli village in Kadapa district was awarded to the Maytas Infra Ltd in December, 2008 on a nomination basis. Mr P. Narayana Reddy, sarpanch of the Obannapet, and two others filed a petition against the project. Following this, the counsel for the roads and buildings department informed the High Court on Friday that the officials were reconsidering the decision.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice Ramesh Ranganthan recorded the statement of counsel on the request of the petitioners’ counsel P. Veera Reddy.
Counsel further informed that after the Satyam fraud surfaced, the state government decided to reconsider the issue. He said a comprehensive decision would be taken on the project within two weeks.
Sebi gets top law man to net Raju
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,Jan. 29: The Centre deputed the Solicitor-General, Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, to fight Sebi’s case for permission to question the Satyam scamster, Mr B. Ramalinga Raju.
The surprise presence of India’s top law officer in the court at this early stage, when the Securities and Exchange Board of India is appealing a lower court decision, showed the Centre’s keenness to get to the bottom of the fraud at the IT company, sources said.
According to sources in the Union ministry of corporate affairs, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, spoke with legal luminaries and top officials overseeing the Satyam case just before his hospitalisation for cardiac surgery.
Mr Vahanvati took serious exception to the lower court’s order disallowing Sebi, a statutory body, from questioning Mr Raju. The High Court decided to begin its hearing on Friday on the Sebi petition.
The High Court registry did not number the petition on Thursday as Sebi had filed a writ instead of a revision petition. The petition came before Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy with an office objection to numbering it.
The judge asked that when there is a provision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code to appeal a lower court decision, why did Sebi choose a writ under Article 226 of Constitution.
The judge asked the Solicitor-General why Sebi was asking the court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the lower court’s order. Mr Vahanvati said for choosing an alternative method there are three exceptions: Violation of fundamental rights, natural justice and jurisdiction.
Citing Supreme Court directions in a previous case, he said if these exceptions were not there he could choose an alternative. Mr Vahanvati contended that Article 226 enables an aggrieved party to challenge the lower court order by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction. The judge directed the registry to number the writ and asked the solicitor-general to argue on the maintainability of the petition.
Hyderabad,Jan. 29: The Centre deputed the Solicitor-General, Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, to fight Sebi’s case for permission to question the Satyam scamster, Mr B. Ramalinga Raju.
The surprise presence of India’s top law officer in the court at this early stage, when the Securities and Exchange Board of India is appealing a lower court decision, showed the Centre’s keenness to get to the bottom of the fraud at the IT company, sources said.
According to sources in the Union ministry of corporate affairs, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, spoke with legal luminaries and top officials overseeing the Satyam case just before his hospitalisation for cardiac surgery.
Mr Vahanvati took serious exception to the lower court’s order disallowing Sebi, a statutory body, from questioning Mr Raju. The High Court decided to begin its hearing on Friday on the Sebi petition.
The High Court registry did not number the petition on Thursday as Sebi had filed a writ instead of a revision petition. The petition came before Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy with an office objection to numbering it.
The judge asked that when there is a provision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code to appeal a lower court decision, why did Sebi choose a writ under Article 226 of Constitution.
The judge asked the Solicitor-General why Sebi was asking the court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the lower court’s order. Mr Vahanvati said for choosing an alternative method there are three exceptions: Violation of fundamental rights, natural justice and jurisdiction.
Citing Supreme Court directions in a previous case, he said if these exceptions were not there he could choose an alternative. Mr Vahanvati contended that Article 226 enables an aggrieved party to challenge the lower court order by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction. The judge directed the registry to number the writ and asked the solicitor-general to argue on the maintainability of the petition.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Padmalaya: HC wants affidavits
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 21: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday directed the state government and Padmalaya Studios to file counter affidavits in connection to a petition filed by the TRS MLA, Mr T. Harish Rao, challenging alienation of land to Padmalaya Studios.
He filed petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the government in ratifying alienation of 5.53 acres in favour of Padmalaya Studios Pvt Ltd. at Jubilee Hills.
The petitioner submitted to the court that the government allotted land to the studios owned by actor G. Krishna and his family members in 1983. After the recipient failed to construct the studio complex, the government initiated steps to take back the land from them in 2006.
The government passed an order on March 30 , 2007, directing Padmalaya Studios to hand over the land to the tahsildar of Shaikpet mandal.
The MLA alleged that the government changed its mind and ratified the alienation and allowed the respondent to enter a third party agreement with a firm to develop the land.
Mr Gandra Mohan Rao, counsel for the petitioner, told the court that the recipients have entered to a sale and development transaction with Zee Telefilms and another firm over the land. He contended that the transaction was illegal as per the AP land Alienation Rules.
Hyderabad, Jan. 21: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday directed the state government and Padmalaya Studios to file counter affidavits in connection to a petition filed by the TRS MLA, Mr T. Harish Rao, challenging alienation of land to Padmalaya Studios.
He filed petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the government in ratifying alienation of 5.53 acres in favour of Padmalaya Studios Pvt Ltd. at Jubilee Hills.
The petitioner submitted to the court that the government allotted land to the studios owned by actor G. Krishna and his family members in 1983. After the recipient failed to construct the studio complex, the government initiated steps to take back the land from them in 2006.
The government passed an order on March 30 , 2007, directing Padmalaya Studios to hand over the land to the tahsildar of Shaikpet mandal.
The MLA alleged that the government changed its mind and ratified the alienation and allowed the respondent to enter a third party agreement with a firm to develop the land.
Mr Gandra Mohan Rao, counsel for the petitioner, told the court that the recipients have entered to a sale and development transaction with Zee Telefilms and another firm over the land. He contended that the transaction was illegal as per the AP land Alienation Rules.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Raju brothers yet to quit board
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 19: Ex-Satyam boss Mr B. Ramalinga Raju and his brother Mr Rama Raju have not resigned from the board of the company.
This was revealed by the advocates of the brothers in the AP High Court on Monday while replying to a query from Justice P. Swaroop Reddy.Mr Prakash Reddy, former additional advocate-general, who appeared for Mr Ramalinga Raju, said the brothers had not resigned from the board.
The court was dealing with the petitions filed by the Raju brothers against a lower court’s orders granting their custody to the police for four days. The petitions were dismissed.
Clarifying the issue of their supposed resignations before the HC, Mr Prakash Reddy said Ramalinga Raju had presented a statement before the board of directors admitting that he inflated the balance sheet of company.
The advocate detailed the figures which Ramalinga Raju presented and added that there was a difference between providing information to the board and submitting resignation.However, right now the brothers were not part of the company as the Centre had suspended the earlier board and had constituted a new one, said Mr Prakash Reddy.
Mr Padmanabha Reddy, senior counsel for Rama Raju, blamed the media for making the investigation into the case clumsy.
Mr Nalini Kumar, counsel for Mr V. Srinivas, the former CFO of the company, said the CID had no role in the case as SEBI, SFIO and ROC had already initiated an investigation in the issue.
Meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday refused to release Mr Raju, his brother and Mr Srinivas from police custody.On January 16, the Sixth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had granted their custody to the CID for four days for further investigation.
Case on actor Dilip Kumar stayed
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 20: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday stayed criminal proceedings against veteran actor Dilip Kumar in a cheque bounce case.
The city-based Deccan Cements Limited and DCL Polyesters filed criminal cases in Nampally Court complaining that the cheques for Rs 1.50 crore and Rs 50 lakh issued by Geekay Exim (India) Limited to repay an inter-corporate deposit bounced in 1998.
The petitioner companies named Dilip Kumar as one of the key accused since he was the chairman of Geekay Exim when the cheques were issued. The court issued a non-bailable warrant against him in 2006. Dilip Kumar filed a petition in the High Court to quash the proceedings. While granting the stay, the court issued notices to the Deccan Cements and DCL Polyesters.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Ex-NFC directors get HC relief
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan 8 : The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the police not to arrest former directors of Nagarjuna Finance Company, Mr K.S. Raju and Mr P.K.S. Madhavan in other cases pending against them in the state as well as in other states.Mr Raju and Mr Madhavan filed separate petitions seeking a direction to club all the cases pending against them in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Mumbai, West Bengal, Delhi, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat.
Deposit holders filed as many as 90 cases against them for non payment of fixed deposits and interest by NFC Ltd.
The petitioners told the court that they were faced with imminent threat of being repeatedly arrested on the similar set of facts and circumstances for which they have already been arrested.
Dealing with the petition Justice D.S.R. Varma refused to issue a direction to club all the cases and treat them as one case.
The court also refused to stay all further proceedings in pending cases. The court said the investigation may go on and not to arrest the petitioners in other cases till further orders.
Hyderabad, Jan 8 : The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the police not to arrest former directors of Nagarjuna Finance Company, Mr K.S. Raju and Mr P.K.S. Madhavan in other cases pending against them in the state as well as in other states.Mr Raju and Mr Madhavan filed separate petitions seeking a direction to club all the cases pending against them in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Mumbai, West Bengal, Delhi, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat.
Deposit holders filed as many as 90 cases against them for non payment of fixed deposits and interest by NFC Ltd.
The petitioners told the court that they were faced with imminent threat of being repeatedly arrested on the similar set of facts and circumstances for which they have already been arrested.
Dealing with the petition Justice D.S.R. Varma refused to issue a direction to club all the cases and treat them as one case.
The court also refused to stay all further proceedings in pending cases. The court said the investigation may go on and not to arrest the petitioners in other cases till further orders.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
NFCL men granted bail by HC
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 7: The Nagarjuna Finance directors, Mr K.S. Raju and Mr P.K.S. Madhav, were granted conditional bail by the High Court on Wednesday. However, the High Court rejected Mr Raju’s plea to exempt him from the liability of paying depositors’ amount back. Both the directors were asked to pay Rs 10 lakh as security.
Raju fraud may cost him 500 times
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 7: The outgoing Satyam Computers chairman, Mr Ramalinga Raju, and his colleagues may face a four-cornered inquiry for the fraud of over Rs 5,000 crore.
As per the law, Mr Raju will have to undergo a jail term of 10 years and will have to pay 500 times the amount as penalty if the charges are proved under Section 45 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act.
The Company Law Board and Registrar of Companies can initiate a suo moto inquiry on the basis of the statement given by Mr Raju on the inflation of funds in the company.
"The registrar of companies need not wait for a formal complaint as Mr Raju has already admitted his guilt," said Mr Veera Reddy, a senior advocate of the AP High Court. "A probe can be ordered under Section 235 of the Companies Act 1976."
Another advocate, Mr P. Subhash, said that Mr Raju’s statement also invited action under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It involves criminal breach of trust," he said. "Producing forged or fictitious documents for personal gains amount to criminal conspiracy."
Mr Subhash said police could launch an investigation based on Mr Raju's statement. "The police should book a case under Section 477 (a) of the IPC dealing with the falsification of accounts against the company and Mr Raju," he said.
In fact, Mr Raju’s statement also draws in the auditors and company secretaries into the ambit of the inquiry.
The Institute of Charted Accountants of India could initiate a probe into the role of the auditors in the alleged fraud.
"If the Institute does not initiate the probe, an investor can file a complaint, contending that he invested the money based on the audit report," said Mr V.V.L. Narasimham, a chartered accountant.
Mr Veera Reddy pointed out that the company secretaries could also face an inquiry for their role in the fraud. "The company directors can also come under the ambit of the probe under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956," he added.
Hyderabad, Jan. 7: The outgoing Satyam Computers chairman, Mr Ramalinga Raju, and his colleagues may face a four-cornered inquiry for the fraud of over Rs 5,000 crore.
As per the law, Mr Raju will have to undergo a jail term of 10 years and will have to pay 500 times the amount as penalty if the charges are proved under Section 45 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act.
The Company Law Board and Registrar of Companies can initiate a suo moto inquiry on the basis of the statement given by Mr Raju on the inflation of funds in the company.
"The registrar of companies need not wait for a formal complaint as Mr Raju has already admitted his guilt," said Mr Veera Reddy, a senior advocate of the AP High Court. "A probe can be ordered under Section 235 of the Companies Act 1976."
Another advocate, Mr P. Subhash, said that Mr Raju’s statement also invited action under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It involves criminal breach of trust," he said. "Producing forged or fictitious documents for personal gains amount to criminal conspiracy."
Mr Subhash said police could launch an investigation based on Mr Raju's statement. "The police should book a case under Section 477 (a) of the IPC dealing with the falsification of accounts against the company and Mr Raju," he said.
In fact, Mr Raju’s statement also draws in the auditors and company secretaries into the ambit of the inquiry.
The Institute of Charted Accountants of India could initiate a probe into the role of the auditors in the alleged fraud.
"If the Institute does not initiate the probe, an investor can file a complaint, contending that he invested the money based on the audit report," said Mr V.V.L. Narasimham, a chartered accountant.
Mr Veera Reddy pointed out that the company secretaries could also face an inquiry for their role in the fraud. "The company directors can also come under the ambit of the probe under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956," he added.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Former NFC chief’s plea
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan 5 : Mr K. Satyanarayana Raju, former director of Nagarjuna Finance, who is in judicial custody, filed a bail petition in the High Court on Monday.
The Hyderabad City Central Crime Station authorities arrested him on December 15, 2008, under Section 406, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act.
The petitioner argued that the special court is not competent to remand him as the APPDFE Act has no power over him.
He contended that he was not responsible for non payment of deposits to deposit-holders and said that the new management was responsible to it. Mr Raju said the consumer courts held that he was not liable and the new management had to repay the deposits.
However, Mr P.K. Madhav, another former NFC director, filed a petition seeking a direction to club all the crimes pending against him relating to non payment of fixed deposits by NFC and investigate the matter together. Mr Madhav was arrested along with Mr K.S. Raju.
Hyderabad, Jan 5 : Mr K. Satyanarayana Raju, former director of Nagarjuna Finance, who is in judicial custody, filed a bail petition in the High Court on Monday.
The Hyderabad City Central Crime Station authorities arrested him on December 15, 2008, under Section 406, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act.
The petitioner argued that the special court is not competent to remand him as the APPDFE Act has no power over him.
He contended that he was not responsible for non payment of deposits to deposit-holders and said that the new management was responsible to it. Mr Raju said the consumer courts held that he was not liable and the new management had to repay the deposits.
However, Mr P.K. Madhav, another former NFC director, filed a petition seeking a direction to club all the crimes pending against him relating to non payment of fixed deposits by NFC and investigate the matter together. Mr Madhav was arrested along with Mr K.S. Raju.
Chiru Party fights order on road show
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 5: The Praja Rajyam and the Bharatiya Janata Party approached the AP High Court challenging the Constitutional validity of the orders issued by the director-general of police banning road shows.
The DGP had issued a circular on December 12, 2008, prohibiting road shows on national and state highways and important artillery roads.
Mr Allu Aravind, general secretary of the PR, and the BJP Legislative Party leader, Mr G. Kishen Reddy filed the petitions.
The petitioners contended that the DGP had no power or jurisdiction under any of the laws which are in force. Public order and police are different entries in the Constitution, and making laws are the exclusive domain of the state government. The police Act 1861, cannot confer any power or authority on the police, who are functioning under local laws.
They argued that the circular had no statutory basis and it cannot be construed as an executive instruction under Article 162 of Constitution.
The petitioners further contended that "it is a settled law that a circular cannot over ride the statute. Circulars or administrative instructions cannot supplant the law, but they can only supplement it."
They submitted that prohibiting road shows and selectively limiting them to rural roads is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution.
Hyderabad, Jan. 5: The Praja Rajyam and the Bharatiya Janata Party approached the AP High Court challenging the Constitutional validity of the orders issued by the director-general of police banning road shows.
The DGP had issued a circular on December 12, 2008, prohibiting road shows on national and state highways and important artillery roads.
Mr Allu Aravind, general secretary of the PR, and the BJP Legislative Party leader, Mr G. Kishen Reddy filed the petitions.
The petitioners contended that the DGP had no power or jurisdiction under any of the laws which are in force. Public order and police are different entries in the Constitution, and making laws are the exclusive domain of the state government. The police Act 1861, cannot confer any power or authority on the police, who are functioning under local laws.
They argued that the circular had no statutory basis and it cannot be construed as an executive instruction under Article 162 of Constitution.
The petitioners further contended that "it is a settled law that a circular cannot over ride the statute. Circulars or administrative instructions cannot supplant the law, but they can only supplement it."
They submitted that prohibiting road shows and selectively limiting them to rural roads is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)