Mumbai: Shradha BinaniMILF’s daughter Brij Binani Of Binani Cements (BCL), has transferred Bombay High Court To challenge the summons issued to him by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). HC Bench of Justice Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar given time to file rejoinder on Monday SFIO The affidavit, which alleged that its investigation “revealed the movement of huge funds from the respective companies of BCL into (his) personal bank account since the year 2010”.
Senior advocates Harish Salve and Janak Dwarkadas submitted that the affidavit was “shamelessly making false” statements. Salve said, “One has to take responsibility for making such statements… the answer makes broad allegations.”
He said the government had “formed an opinion on an opinion which did not pertain at the time the young woman was associated with the company”. “Something has to be done about this kind of strategy (of the government),” he said.
Salve said he wants an order from the HC directing the SFIO to furnish details to support his claim. The HC bench, not inclined to pass any such order, said it would know what happens to and from his account.
Salve then said, “This is a very serious matter. I would like to file a one-page reply.” This was allowed by the HC and posted the matter for further hearing on January 31.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh The SFIO said, “Let him file his reply. What are the details of the investigation cannot be shared with them at this point of time.”
Shraddha was a non-executive director in the company for two years from April 2012 to April 2014. In 2017, there was Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against BCL. In 2018, all creditors were paid off and the company exited the process. A resolution professional – or RP, who is the person appointed to ensure that the company becomes re-solvent – had obtained an expert opinion, on the basis of which it has filed a resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for the period 2015-2017. A ‘defense application’ was filed. Shraddha’s lawyers said there was no mention of her in Rai or that any money was given to her.
Their case is that, suddenly in May and June 2020, after the completion of the CIRP and the RP was no longer a role, the Center initiated an investigation through the SFIO into the affairs of the company and later in July Issued two summons. To appear before it personally on 30th and 27th September, 2021 and also to provide certain documents relating to the Bank.
In its reply, the SFIO said Shraddha is “deliberately evading presence” and “tried to leave India” during the ongoing investigation in August 2021. The SFIO said that it received money in its personal account from some other entities to which the money was transferred. directly or indirectly from BCL.
Shraddha’s petition for quashing of the summons was on the ground that since the CIRP was successfully completed, the BCL is free from any prosecution for the alleged offense committed prior to the conciliation process. The summons is beyond the powers of the SFIO under the Companies Act and also violates its fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19(1) (g) (freedom of business and profession), 20(3) (self-incrimination). Huh. Right to life and liberty under Article 21.
Senior advocates Harish Salve and Janak Dwarkadas submitted that the affidavit was “shamelessly making false” statements. Salve said, “One has to take responsibility for making such statements… the answer makes broad allegations.”
He said the government had “formed an opinion on an opinion which did not pertain at the time the young woman was associated with the company”. “Something has to be done about this kind of strategy (of the government),” he said.
Salve said he wants an order from the HC directing the SFIO to furnish details to support his claim. The HC bench, not inclined to pass any such order, said it would know what happens to and from his account.
Salve then said, “This is a very serious matter. I would like to file a one-page reply.” This was allowed by the HC and posted the matter for further hearing on January 31.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh The SFIO said, “Let him file his reply. What are the details of the investigation cannot be shared with them at this point of time.”
Shraddha was a non-executive director in the company for two years from April 2012 to April 2014. In 2017, there was Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against BCL. In 2018, all creditors were paid off and the company exited the process. A resolution professional – or RP, who is the person appointed to ensure that the company becomes re-solvent – had obtained an expert opinion, on the basis of which it has filed a resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for the period 2015-2017. A ‘defense application’ was filed. Shraddha’s lawyers said there was no mention of her in Rai or that any money was given to her.
Their case is that, suddenly in May and June 2020, after the completion of the CIRP and the RP was no longer a role, the Center initiated an investigation through the SFIO into the affairs of the company and later in July Issued two summons. To appear before it personally on 30th and 27th September, 2021 and also to provide certain documents relating to the Bank.
In its reply, the SFIO said Shraddha is “deliberately evading presence” and “tried to leave India” during the ongoing investigation in August 2021. The SFIO said that it received money in its personal account from some other entities to which the money was transferred. directly or indirectly from BCL.
Shraddha’s petition for quashing of the summons was on the ground that since the CIRP was successfully completed, the BCL is free from any prosecution for the alleged offense committed prior to the conciliation process. The summons is beyond the powers of the SFIO under the Companies Act and also violates its fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19(1) (g) (freedom of business and profession), 20(3) (self-incrimination). Huh. Right to life and liberty under Article 21.
,