Hyderabad: The AP CID on Monday told the Hyderabad High Court on Monday that All India AgriGold Customers and Agents Welfare Association had no links with the management of the AgriGold Group of Companies.
A division bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice S.V. Bhatt while hearing a public interest litigation by the association seeking CBI probe into the Rs 7,000-crore scam that has affected over 32 lakh depositors. The court while ordering a CID probe previously, had asked it to inquire into antecedents of the association.
The CID told the court that the association had collected Rs 44.69 lakh from 410 agents of the company and it had targeted a collection of Rs 111.2 crores to participate in the auction of AgriGold properties. It had decided to sell the land purchased through auction for higher price to distribute the profit among the association members.
The CID said land belonging to AgriGold at Keesara in Krishna district had been divided into small blocks to attract more bidders.
Asking the petitioners to look into the proposal made by the CID with regard to small blocks and make suggestions, the bench posted the case to next Monday.
Arguments end in Tech Mahindra case
The Hyderabad High Court on Monday declared arguments concluded on the appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against Tech Mahindra Limited (formerly Satyam Computer Services Limited), challenging an order of a single judge. The single judge had quashed the ED case against Tech Mahindra on the ground that the scam was perpetrated by former Satyam Computers chairman B Ramalinga Raju and a few others and that the new company could not be held responsible for the same.
A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice A. Shankar Narayana was concluding the hearing on the appeal.
Enforcement Directorate counsel contended that the investigating agency had named Tech Mahindra as an accused since it had retained the proceeds of the crime. He said the case against the other accused cannot be sustained without the name of the company (Tech Mahindra).
Tech Mahindra had contended that it had come to the rescue of the Satyam Computer, and could not be made an accused. The company challenged the proceedings of the ED against it under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in Satyam case. The bench granted two weeks to counsels to submit written arguments.
Centre appeals posting of IAS officials
The Centre filed separate petitions in the High Court challenging the orders of the Hyderabad bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal that quashed the allotment of IAS officers.
The tribunal had quashed the allocation of Mr Somesh Kumar, Mr Ronald Ross, Mr S.S. Rawat, Ms K. Amrapali, Ms Karuna Vakati, Ms M. Prashanthi and Ms A. Vani Prasad to AP.
The tribunal had directed the Centre to treat Mr Hari Kiran, Mr Shiva Shankar Lahoti and Ms Gummalla Srujana as belonging to the AP cadre, on March 20, 2016.
The Centre said it had constituted the Pratyush Sinha committee to allocate officers between TS and AP under the AP Reorganisation Act 2014. Counsels for the officers sought an adjournment of the hearing to Tuesday.
