New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday warned Maxis group owner T. Ananda Krishnan of Malaysia that he must enter appearance in Indian court failing which 50 per cent shares in Aircel, in which he has major stakes will be auctioned.
Aircel and Reliance Communication have entered into an agreement to merge the two entities and 50% shares of Aircel valued at Rs 20,000 crores will be transferred to Rcom.
Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, heading a Bench which also includes Justices N.V. Ramana and D.Y. Chandrachud, told senior counsel Abhishek Singhvi for Aircel that the court will ask the Centre to auction the shares, keeping the value at Rs 20,000 crores, payable to the banks where the shares are pledged. If the auction price is less than Rs 20,000 crore then Rcom will get it or it will go to other entity.
Mr. Singhvi told that court that it cannot use Aircel to procure the presence of Ananda Krishnan. He said there is no outflow of money or sale as it is only a merger through transfer of shares. The CJI observed “He (Maxis group owner) doesn't care for the law or the Supreme Court of this country, and yet you people stand up to defend him? One must subject himself to the process of law. We will not allow merger of Reliance Communication wireless with Aircel, unless Rs 20,000 cr debt of nationalised banks is liquidated. We will adopt any means to ensure his presence.”
In the last hearing on January 6 he had indicated that it proposed to restrain the transfer of shares and sought response of Ananda Krishnan. Today the Centre informed the court that advertisements were issued in two newspapers in Malaysia requiring the presence of Ananda Krishnan in the court and yet he did not respond.
Taking note of this, the Bench in a brief order said “we are of the view that it is necessary that some other appropriate order is passed to achieve the purpose of his presence besides the order earlier contemplated (to stay the transfer of shares). If the accused Ananda Krishnan and his one-time key aide and Director Augustus Ralph Marshal fail to present themselves before Indian courts it might not be to open to them at a later stage to object to the monetary loss that may be caused to them.”
