TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade the off market transactions way back in the year 2003 at a price of around Rs.340 per share and the price of the shares rose sharply in the year 2006 touching the figure of Rs.966.80 and that the petitioner, if she was in position of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) would have sold the shares during peek price inspite of selling at depressed price in the year 2003 and cleared her name in the proceedings launched by SEBI and considering that no attachment orders were issued by the Court during the trial or in the final judgment and considering the age of the petitioner who was at the fag end of her life and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she required money for her expenditure during her old age, it is considered fit to direct the 1st respondent to defreeze the bank accounts and fixed deposits of the petitioner and permit her to operate the accounts and fixed deposits Writ Petition is allowed directing the 1st respondent to defreeze the bank accounts and fixed deposits of the petitioner by giving a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to allow the petitioner to operate the accounts and fixed deposits. - WRIT PETITION No.12595 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period of restraint imposed on the petitioner stood vacated. After the Hon ble Apex Court Order, petitioner made an application to the respondents seeking to know the status of her accounts and also requested the respondents to defreeze her accounts and fixed deposits. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 replied vide letters dated 09.10.2018 and 05.11.2018 respectively that the 1st respondent had addressed letter dated 07.04.2015 to continue the freezing of the accounts and therefore, the accounts could not be defreezed. The letter dated 07.04.2015 was not served on the petitioner. The judgment in C.C.No.1,2,3 of 2010 was delivered two days thereafter on 09.04.2015. The petitioner also gave representation to the 1st respondent on 22.11.2018 to which the 1st respondent had not replied. The action of the 1st respondent in directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to continue freezing all the savings bank accounts and fixed deposits of the petitioner was arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and without jurisdiction. The petitioner filed Income Tax returns before the Income Tax Authority. She declared the income in the above accounts to the Income Tax Department. The money in the SB Account and Fix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed and inside information about the fabrication of the financial statements of the company. Further, the promoters gained wrongfully by receiving the dividends which was declared on the basis of the false and inflated profits. By these fraudulent acts of the promoters of the company, 15 Indian Institutional Investors who invested in the shares of M/s.SCSL suffered wrongful losses to a tune of Rs.1,611 crore. The promoters of the company and their family members including the petitioner invested the wrongful gains in bank accounts and fixed deposits maintained in different banks and also acquired huge chunk of immovable assets in the form of 6,000 acres of land, 37,000 square yards of housing plots and 87,439 square feet of built-up area. A total of 1,065 properties were acquired by the accused and their family members worth around Rs.350 crores in the name of 327 companies. 6. He further submitted that the amounts for creation of fixed deposits and savings accounts in question with Karur Vysya Bank and HDFC Banks in the name of the petitioner were the proceeds of the crime and hence were seized during the investigation. They were liable to be confiscated as such could not be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (SCSL) and had lost her husband in the year 2001. She sold her shares in Satyam Computers Services Limited (SCSL) on 12th and 15th December, 2003 to three group companies, in an off-market sale, as she needed money considering that she had to sustain herself as a widow. According to Shri Sundaram, though his client would be a relative of B. Ramalinga Raju and, therefore, a connected person, yet, it is obvious that the off market transactions made way back in the year 2003 at a price of around Rs.340/- per share did not attract the 1992 Regulations as the price of these shares rose sharply only thereafter touching a figure of Rs. 966.80/- in the year ending of 2006. According to the learned senior counsel, there was no evidence whatsoever of any complicity of this lady with the fraud perpetrated by her son and his cohorts. He referred to the judgment of the Whole Time Member and to the majority judgment of the Appellate Tribunal holding that all that has been found against his client is that she is a close relative of B. Ramalinga Raju and by virtue of this close relationship, it, therefore, must be presumed that she had access to Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI). In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
