Skip to main content

Debt Recovery Tribunal bars Varun Industries promoters from leaving India

The Debt Recovery Tribunal of Mumbai has ordered the promoters of Varun Industries to submit their passports and not leave the country without its permission.

"The counsel appearing for the applicants (consortium of banks led by Indian Bank) submitted that defendants (promoters of Varun Industries) are making attempts to leave the country to avoid arrest and legal consequences of several cases and proceedings initiated by the creditors," said the tribunal's presiding officer, HV Subba Rao, in his order.

The lenders had approached the tribunal to recover over Rs 1,900 crore in dues from the Mumbai-based steel maker. The banks had extended money to the company between 2007 and 2011 under various credit facilities, financial assistance and loans, which were payable till August 31, 2013.

In its order on Friday, the tribunal directed Varun Industries' CMD Kiran Mehta, MD Kailash Agarwal and other key people in the company to submit their passports to the registrar. It also directed them not to leave the company. Also, the company's shares have been suspended from trading for alleged violation of listing rules. The petition also names the company's other directors, Varun K Mehta, Raja Jain and Mahindra Tahilramani— as respondents.

The lenders are seeking the tribunal's intervention to restrain the company and its promoters from selling or creating any third party rights over any of the company assets that are mortgaged to the banks.

Article referred: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-12-10/news/56917656_1_varun-industries-indian-bank-promoters

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more