Category: Legal

Would have liked greater clarification on Videocon loan, says former ICICI Bank chairman

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

ICICI Bank’s clarifications on the Rs 3250 crore loan to Videocon Group could have been done in greater detail,  N Vaghul, former chairman of the bank said.

Vaghul also supported the bank’s CEO, Chanda Kochhar, and said, “I know her now for 35 years, 25 years I worked closely with her. I cannot even imagine that she could ever be party to a transaction which could have a shadow of doubt or anything like that.”

Two of India’s top private sector bankers have come under fire— ICICI Bank’s Chanda Kochhar is battling allegations of “conflict of interest” over her husband’s business dealings with Videocon Group’s Venugopal Dhoot.

The bank’s Rs 3250 crore loan to Videocon Group has come under question with the CBI filing a preliminary enquiry (PE). Sources say Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar are likely to be asked to join the probe.

On the other hand, Reserve Bank of India has raised questions over Axis Bank giving Shikha Sharma a fourth term as the MD and CEO.

Shares of both ICICI Bank and Axis Bank plunged in trade as both the private sector banks have trouble brewing in their corner offices.

Here is how the entire Kochhar-Dhoot controversy came to light. In a letter written in 2016 to the Prime Minister’s Office, an investor called Arvind Gupta had alleged, what he called— “illicit banking and commercial relationship” between ICICI Bank’s CEO Chanda Kochhar’s family and Videocon Group’s Venugopal Dhoot.

Gupta claims to be an investor in both ICICI and Videocon. He alleged a “potential conflict of interest” in ICICI Bank granting a Rs 3250 crore loan to Videocon Group which later became a non-performing asset.

In his letter, Gupta claimed that Chanda Kochhar’s husband had business dealings with Videocon Group’s Venugopal Dhoot. The ICICI Bank board has thrown its weight behind Chanda Kochhar. ICICI Bank’s Chairman MK Sharma has called the allegations “malicious and unfounded.”

Shereen Bhan spoke to N Vaghul Former Chairman of ICICI Bank, Shriram Subramanian Founder & MD of InGovern, Prabal Basu Roy Sloan Fellow – London Business School PE Investor & Startup Advisor and Sandeep Parekh Founder of Finsec Law Advisors to discuss the issues.

N Vaghul speaking on the issue said, “These allegations were there in 2016, then again were repeated in 2018. I heard Mr Sharma’s statement, I know these two people very well. Mr Sharma personally is a person with unimpeachable integrity and I think more than unimpeachable integrity, he is very thorough in whatever he does. When he makes a statement that there is no conflict of interest, there is no quid pro quo, it was done in the normal course, I have no reason to doubt his statement. As far as Chanda Kochhar is concerned, I know her now for 35 years, 25 years I worked closely with her. I cannot even imagine that she could ever be party to a transaction which could have a shadow of doubt or anything like that.”

He added, “I did find that the clarifications could have been done in a greater detail. When clarification came, I wanted to find out what exactly is happening because in 2016 I did not pay much attention to it. I did not know who was making that allegation, it came in a series of WhatsApp messages to me and when the bank said there is no truth in it, I believed in it. In 2018 it was made an individual through a letter that was written. So, it had to be taken seriously and the whole thing went into public domain.”

He further added, “I would divide this whole issue into two parts – one part which pertains to ICICI Bank and another part to Chanda Kochhar’s proprietary issues. So far as the ICICI Bank is concerned, Mr Sharma has made a statement that Rs 3250 crore loan was not a loan which was given in 2012 but it represents what is known as consolidation of loan which was in existence at that time. So, this was the issue on which I made enquiry in the bank as to what exactly is the Rs 3250 crore loan. I was told that Rs 3250 crore represents the exposure of the ICICI Bank at that particular point of time. What happened was at that time – 2012, there was a decision by the lead bank – which was State Bank of India, to consolidate all the loans which were given to Videocon Industries and few other subsidiaries – more than 10 subsidiaries into a single loan in order to capture the cash flows and capture the full security. ICICI Bank participated in that consortium of 20 banks. Participation was no more than the exposure which they already have of loans which have been given right from the beginning. The Rs 3250 crore is not a new loan that has been given to Videocon but it represents a consolidation of the existing loans given to the Videocon and subsidiaries has not come out.”

Below is the excerpt of N Vaghul’s interview.

Shereen: If I may start by asking you these were allegations that were first brought to light in 2016. As per what MK Sharma told us in that press conference the board of ICICI Bank looked to those allegations and apparently adequately addressed them? Should this not have been made public? Should this not have been put out in the public domain to address the allegations that were first raised in 2016 if indeed the board had found that there was no discrepancy of any kind that there was no mala fide of any kind, that there was nothing improper in the transactions that had been done?

A: These allegations were there in 2016, then again were repeated in 2018. I heard Mr Sharma’s statement, I know these two people very well. Mr Sharma personally is a person with unimpeachable integrity and I think more than an unimpeachable integrity, he is very thorough in whatever he does. When he makes a statement that there is no conflict of interest, there is no quid pro quo, it was done in the normal course, I have no reason to doubt his statement. As far as Chanda Kochhar is concerned, I know her now for 35 years, 25 years I worked closely with her. I cannot even imagine that she could ever be party to a transaction which could have a shadow of doubt or anything like that.

I don’t know the full details. I did find that clarifications could be a little more done in greater detail. When the clarification came, I wanted to find out what exactly is happening because in 2016 I did not pay much attention to it. I did not know who was making that allegation. It came in a series of WhatsApp messages to me and when the bank said there is no truth in it, I believed in it.

In 2018 it was made by an individual through a letter that was written. So, I think it had to be taken seriously and 2018 the whole thing went into a public domain. What was a loose rumour you don’t put it in the public domain.

Shereen: If I can specifically ask you since you said that you decided to take the allegations much more seriously in 2018 and you have asked the bank question specifically with respect to the allegations made what is the clarity that you have got on this convertible debenture of Rs 64 crore because that is really at the heart of the controversies isn’t it?

A: I would divide this whole issue into two parts – one part which pertains to ICICI Bank and another part to Chanda Kochhar’s proprietary issues. So far as the ICICI Bank is concerned, Mr Sharma has made a statement that Rs 3,250 crore loan was not a loan which was given in 2012, but it represents what is known as consolidation of the loan which was in existence at that time. So, this was an issue on which I made enquiries in the bank as to what exactly is the Rs 3,250 crore loan. I was told that Rs 3,250 crore represents the exposure of the ICICI Bank at that particular point of time. What happened was at that time – 2012, there was a decision by the lead bank – which was State Bank of India, to consolidate all the loans which were given to Videocon Industries and few other subsidiaries – more than 10 subsidiaries into a single loan in order to capture the cash flows and capture the full security.

ICICI Bank participated in that consortium of the 20 banks. Participation was no more than the exposure which they already have of loans which have been given right from the beginning. As far as I know that this Videocon had been dealing with ICICI Bank from the time of 1985. Their relationship with ICICI Bank was as long as about now 33 years. At the time when I left it was about 25 years. So the Rs 3,250 crore is not a new loan that has been given to Videocon, but it represents a consolidation of the existing loans given to the Videocon and the subsidiaries has not come out. I heard a few people talk about as though that Rs 3,250 crore of represents a new loan. I don’t think it is correct.

Latha: Nothing new was given after – in 2012 no additional money?

A: Nothing was given, no additional money. In fact 2012, I am told because I am not in bank, I can’t access the records. I am told that in 2012 what was given at Rs 3,250 crore represents the actual exposure of ICICI at that particular point of time, represents the series of loans given to Videocon and its subsidiaries over a period of time, over a period of last four-five years 2008-2012. In Rs 3,250 crore does not represent any increase in exposure. In fact when you take the total consolidation I am told that there is reduction in the share, so far as the consortium is concerned so new facilities were given in to 2012.

Latha: No covenants were changed because when it became a consortium loan new conditions?

A: I am sure, I am not privy to that I cannot say that. Certainly, I supposed there must have been a consolidation of security, there must have been escrow process in which you capture the cash flow. More important point is a proof of the pudding lies in the eating. In 2012 consolidation took place. Till 2017 the loan was a performing loan. They were paying the interest, they were paying the instalments. It was not as if that the loan was bad right ab initio. The loan was a performing loan in 2017 and in 2017 the loan became non-performing loan. Right now I think it has gone into the insolvency and it will be dealt with in accordance with insolvency.

Latha: Are the conditions imposed by ICICI in their covenants in 2012 similar to the covenants of other?

A: I am told that the ICICI covenant is almost identical to that of what SBI did. ICICI did not put any conditions, I think SBI and SBI capital market spear headed that transaction. So, it was in the broader interest to protect the interest of all the 20 banks that instead of each one giving separately for the subsidiaries it is all consolidation. That is why Mr. Sharma used the term that it is a consolidation loan. It is not a new loan.

Latha: I thought some of the bankers said that some of the loans given by ICICI were part of the consortium but some were outside the consortium?

A: That I don’t know. What I heard from the bank is that Rs 3,250 crore is total exposure and there were been serviced and it was being brought down to about Rs 2,000 crore odd over a period of five years.

Latha: Did you ask then whether they were fully aware that the managing director’s husband had got such a large investment or a loan from Videocon?

A: I don’t think they were aware that Mrs Kochhar’s husband was in the business. Whether there was a relationship with a Videocon I don’t think the board would have been aware of it. But the board would have been disclosed that Mrs Chanda Kochhar’s husband has a business.

Latha: Not the nature of the relation with Videocon?

A: That is not asked for. I mean no board would ask for it.

Latha: The board won’t ask for it, but is it not the duty of the managing director to say that?

A: In 2016 when the allegation was made I am sure that they asked for it. And 2016 I suppose what might have happen in 2012 what I am told again this is all hearsay. I am very carefully in what I say because these are not things which I know for certain. In 2012 the business of Deepak Kochhar, Mrs Chanda Kochhar’s husband was not doing well. The Supreme Energy something like that which had made that investment of Rs 64 crore asked Deepak Kochhar whether they can takeover that company. So, they took over that company with the liabilities.  Rs 64 crore of the asset and Rs 64 crore was the liability. I think they paid what you call the equity that is invested. For that equity of Rs 10,00,000 was something like that.

Latha: That means Deepak Kochhar’s company intends to redeem those debentures now?

A: Of course that is what I am told. Deepak Kochhar’s company has an obligation to redeem the debentures. The debentures, I believe were restructured into a long term debentures because the company was not making profit, the company is incurring losses. So, it has an obligation to repay their debentures and the debentures will have to be paid.

Shereen: If I may, while we heard from the ICICI Chairman about the transaction between Videocon and ICICI Bank, part of a consortium and so on and so forth, if in fact Chanda Kochhar has made the disclosure about the transactions – and I am talking post 2016 because the allegations came to light in 2016, has the ICICI Bank board examined these allegations for it to give a clean chit and say that there has been no instance of quid pro quo, there is no nepotism because then that means that the board has specifically looked at these transactions that involve Deepak Kochhar, Supreme Energy, and Venugopal Dhoot?

A: Answer to your question, I would like to put it this way that this is a problem with – we have to understand that women who come into the senior positions in the organisation, you cannot ask their husbands to step off and say that they should stop doing any business and it is not the purpose of the board to keep on asking will you please share the details of your husbands business to the board for every transaction that is being done.

Latha: Only in this instance, since it is a large loan, large investment that Videocon has made in Deepak Kochhar’s company, I mean Rs 64 crore is not laughing matter, doesn’t proprietary demand that Chanda Kochhar should have declared to the credit committee in which she was sitting?

A: You have to prove that Chanda Kochhar is aware of it, in a sense that is Chanda Kochhar managing ICICI Bank or is managing Deepak Kochhar’s business. If Deepak Kochhar is having a relationship with Videocon, how can you expect Mrs Kochhar to inform the board? No loan was been given in 2012, it was only a consolidation of the loan that has been given by the bank.

Latha: That is certainly a new point because we were under the impression fresh money was given in 2012.

A: I think that it is asking for too much because the Companies Act requires that you have to disclose the nature of the business of your husband and I am sure that if a loan were to be given of this order, Rs 3,250 crore is a large amount, Rs 64 crore for renewable energy is not a large amount.

Latha: Going by the little we know about NuPower, it has been making losses of Rs 10-12 crore thereabouts. Mrs Kochhar would know if Mr Kochhar got an amount as large as Rs 65 crore.

A: That I would not be in a position to comment.

Latha: If you were Chairman, would you have preferred that she had said it to the credit committee?

A: That is anybody’s thing. When the 2012 consolidation took place was she the Chairman?

Latha: She was the MD, but she was not the Chairman on the credit committee we understand.

A: Kamath was the Chairman of the credit committee. I really would not know the dynamics at that particular point of time. However, frankly I think you can demand a high level of integrity and high level of propriety from anybody, in a sense you can refrain from doing a transaction, but I think I would leave that issue aside because I see from the papers that CBI is going into the preliminary enquiry.

I want you to look at the transaction two parts. One is the ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank itself has confirmed they have not done anything wrong, they have only consolidated an exposure which was a performing loan for a period of five years, which has become non-performing and which will go into the insolvency. From what Videocon statement is concerned is that it might be able to – bank would be making the provisions, and for the bank is fully protected.

Now second is the propriety of Kochhar’s family in what way that is affected is the result of what should be disclosed and what should not be disclosed. At the moment I will not make any comment, except for the fact that there is I believe a preliminary enquiry which the CBI is doing. They will go into it. If the family had derived an economic advantage leveraging on the relationship with Videocon, certainly I suppose that is an issue which would cost me a lot of concern.

However, on the other hand, what has happened is that Videocon was in the process of investing and they have invested in Kochhar’s business. I do not think that I would demand from his wife, unless she is aware of, unless you are able to establish that she is aware of, that would mean that the husband and wife would have to be completely sharing all the information in respect of everything that happens between them.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

ICICI-Videocon deal: CBI likely to question Chanda Kochhar today

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

After launching a preliminary enquiry on Saturday into the alleged deal between the ICICI Bank CEO, Chanda Kochhar’s husband Deepak Kochhar and Videocon Group chairman Venugopal Dhoot, the CBI on Monday is likely to question Chandha Kochhar over the Rs 3,250 crore loan.

The investigative agency has already questioned several bank officials in the case.

However, the agency reportedly said that it would question Kochhar only to understand the loan procedure and maintained that she would not be interrogated.

According to sources, the preliminary enquiry will focus on the accuracy of alleged reports that Dhoot lent Rs 64 crore to a company handled by Deepak Kochhar and other relatives, after Videocon borrowed Rs 3,250 crore from ICICI in 2012.

ICICI chairman MK Sharma had denied any wrongdoing on the bank’s part in connection with the loan worth Rs 3,250 crore to the home appliance maker.

ICICI Bank was part of a consortium of the 20 lenders which sanctioned loans to Videocon Group, totaling Rs. 40,000 crore, for debt consolidation and to come up with oil and gas capital expenditure.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

ICICI-Videocon deal: CBI files preliminary enquiry against Deepak Kochhar and Venugopal Dhoot

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The CBI today launched a preliminary enquiry into the alleged deal between the ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar’s husband Deepak Kochar and Videocon Group chairman Venugopal Dhoot, two days after ICICI chairman MK Sharma denied any wrongdoing on the bank’s part in connection with the loan worth Rs 3,250 crore to the home  appliance maker.

According to sources, the preliminary enquiry will focus on the accuracy of alleged reports that Dhoot lent Rs 64 crore to a company handled by Deepak Kochar and other relatives, after Videocon borrowed Rs 3,250 crore from ICICI in 2012.

CBI files preliminary enquiry against Deepak Kochhar & Venugopal Dhoot in Videocon-ICICI bank loan case. @uttkarsh311090 gets the details pic.twitter.com/1iBvpYklJr

— CNBC-TV18 News (@CNBCTV18News) March 31, 2018

ICICI Bank was part of a consortium of the 20 lenders which sanctioned loans to Videocon Group, totaling Rs. 40,000 crore, for debt consolidation and to come up with oil and gas capital expenditure.

“The board has come to the conclusion that there is no question of any quid pro quo/nepotism/conflict of interest as is being alleged in various rumours,” the bank had said in a statement on March 28.

Dhoot, in an exclusive interview with CNBC-TV18, denied the Rs 64 crore transaction with any company or individual. He said he had already sold all his shares in Supreme Energy before the matter came to light.

He further denied rumours  of any transactions with respect to the latter company.

“Neither any investigative agency nor ICICI Bank has approached me with any kind of questions regarding the concerned matter,” Dhoot said.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

India is still nowhere near securing its citizens’ data

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

It was the perfect photo-op when Prime Minister Narendra Modi hugged Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg during a town-hall meeting at the social media giant’s sprawling headquarters at Menlo Park, California, in September 2015.

With Facebook now embroiled in a massive data breach controversy, the bonhomie appears to be over, with India warning Zuckerberg of “stringent action”, including summoning him over the “misuse” of data to allegedly influence the country’s electoral process.

Zuckerberg has recently said Facebook will ensure that its platform is not misused to influence elections in India and elsewhere, but after witnessing how social media platforms were infiltrated during the 2016 US presidential election and the Brexit vote in the UK, nothing can be predicted at this point of time.

While governments the world over are fast formulating new laws that deal with users’ data security and privacy, and the spread of false news, India lags far behind on this front.

Is the country prepared in case a huge data security or privacy breach hits its people?

According to top cyber law experts, India as a nation has missed the broader point in the ever-changing tech landscape.

“The moot point here is: How do we regulate mobile app providers, social media players and intermediaries in terms of handling and processing the users’ data? We don’t have a data protection law in place. We neither have a national law on cyber security nor a national law on privacy,” Pavan Duggal, the nation’s leading cyber law expert, told IANS.

The absence of these critical laws has created a very fertile ground for the misuse and unauthorised access of users’ data by the service providers.

“On top of it, India has not revisited its stand on intermediaries’ liabilities since 2008. Also, the service providers have been given a great fillip by a judgement of the Supreme court, where the service providers are directed not to take any action till such time they get a court or a government agency order,” Duggal informed.

In such a scenario, service providers are using the “Indians’ data with impunity”.

“They are transferring them outside the territorial boundaries of the country because we as a nation are sleeping. Once the data goes outside the country, the government loses all control. This has a detrimental impact on the protection and preservation of people’s data privacy and personal privacy,” Duggal stressed.

India has to learn from the European Union (EU) when it comes to formulating a legal framework to secure data.

The EU has asked businesses and service providers globally to comply with its new privacy law — the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — that comes into force from May 25 this year.

The EU GDPR has been designed to harmonise data privacy laws across Europe — to protect and empower all EU citizens’ data privacy and to reshape the way organisations across the region approach data privacy.

After four years of debate, the GDPR was finally approved by the EU Parliament on April 14, 2016. Organisations that fail to comply with the new regulation will face hefty fines.

Although a white paper on data security has been published by the Indian government for all the stakeholders to deliberate upon, the country is still working on drafting a data protection bill.

“India is woefully under-prepared to address issues of data protection and cyber-security. We need a data protection law that protects citizens from misuse of data with strict liability and extremely high statutory damages that must be awarded within a strict period of time,” said Mishi Choudhary, President and Legal Director of New Delhi-based Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in), a not-for-profit organisation.

According to Duggal, also a noted Supreme Court lawyer, India should not cut-paste any other country’s law as it has to deal with a different set of problems.

“India’s social realities are entirely different. The country has to deal with the huge issue of Aadhaar which is reeling under variety of cyber attacks because we have failed to apply cyber security as an integral part of the Aadhaar architecture,” Duggal told IANS.

India’s approach has to be based from its soil and the country must strive for data localisation.

“India should not allow its data to be stored outside its boundaries. Service providers must (be made to pay) high penalty if they are found to be misusing the data of Indians irrespective of if they are physically located in the country or not,” Duggal said.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

IT department names 24 defaulters owing Rs 490 crore in taxes

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The Income Tax Department on Thursday released a pan-India list of 24 defaulting individuals and companies who owe about Rs 490 crore in taxes to the exchequer but have either gone untraceable or have reported inadequate assets for payment of dues.

The department issued an advertisement as part of its name and shame defaulters policy in leading national dailies titled ‘List of defaulters of Income Tax and Corporate Tax.’

The notice, issued by a nodal office of the Principal Director General of Income Tax in Delhi, “advised” the named defaulters to pay their tax arrears immediately.

The public announcement carries the identity of the firm or the individual, the name of their directors and partners, the date of incorporation of the company (date of birth in case of individuals), their Permanent Account Number (PAN) or the Tax Deduction Account Number (TAN), their last known address and business profile, the amount of tax defaulted, assessment year and the respective jurisdictional I-T authority.

These defaulting firms were in the business sectors like food processing, bullion trading, software, real estate, breweries and manufacture of ingots among others

The maximum tax dues of over Rs 86.27 crore is against a Delhi-based company named Ms Stock Guru, India and its partner Lokeshwar Dev and the notice said the assessee has gone untraceable and also has inadequate assets to pay the income tax.

The dues for this firm are for the assessment years (AYs) 2009-10 and 2010-11. Some of the defaulters on the list have not paid their taxes for the assessment year 1989-90.

A Kolkata-based individual Arjun Sonkar, as per the notice, has an I-T default of over Rs 51.37 crore and is “not traceable” now. He is followed by Kishan Sharma, another individual from the West Bengal capital, who the department said is in default of Rs 47.52 crore of income tax.

The total tax default amount by 24 entities, from cities like Ahmedabad, Guwahati, Vijayawada, Nashik, Surat, Delhi, Vadodara, Kolkata and others, is about Rs 490 crore.

A senior I-T Department official said the public list is aimed to make people aware so that they can help the department in nabbing these defaulters, if they have any information about them.

The notice also carried a disclaimer that the “entries in the list are specific to the tax arrear/assessment year mentioned and the tax defaulter’s address, business, shareholding and management may have changed” now.

It added that the amount of default “shall further increase” after due interest is levied on it.

The department has carried out this exercise over the last few years and had named 96 such entities which have huge tax liabilities on them but they have either gone non- traceable or have shown no assets for recovery.

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the policy- making body of the I-T department, had few years back adopted the strategy of bringing out the names of chronic defaulters in public domain and had also begun posting these names on its official website.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

“I don’t have any connection with Supreme Energy,” says Videocon’s Venugopal Dhoot

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

Chairman and Managing Director of Videocon Industries Venugopal Dhoot has denied any connection with Supreme Energy– the company in the midst of a controversy relating to ICICI Bank, its CEO Chanda Kochhar and her husband and CEO of NuPower Deepak Kochhar.

In an exclusive interview with CNBC-TV18, Dhoot said that Videocon Group has not given the alleged Rs 64 crore to NuPower Energy.

Edited transcript of the interview:

Shereen Bhan: What was the reason for the Rs 64 crore transaction between you and NuPower Renewables Pvt Ltd which was a company of Deepak Kochhar. Can you explain to us that particular transaction?

Dhoot: Videocon Industries Limited or Videocon Group has not given any Rs 64 crore to whatever company you called.

Latha Venkatesh: You owned a large stake in Supreme Energy and that company subscribed to convertible debentures worth Rs 64 crore of NuPower. Why did you all make that debenture investment? What was that in exchange for?

Dhoot: It is wrong information. I had invested some Rs 50,000 and that is not a huge amount. I don’t have any connection with Supreme Energy. Whatever share I had in Supreme Energy, I sold them.

Latha: When did you sell? Because it looks like you sold it after the alleged transaction. The report says that you sold the shares of Supreme Energy in November of 2010 but the subscription to the Rs 64 crore debentures was in March of 2010.

Dhoot: I am telling you that I sold these shares before what this said investment has been made by Supreme Energy.

Latha: You are saying that you sold the shares in Supreme Energy before Supreme Energy subscribed to the convertible debentures?

Dhoot: Yes, what Supreme Energy did later, I don’t know. I am not involved with Supreme Energy.

#CNBCTV18Exclusive | Videocon’s Venugopal Dhoot defends himself in the @ICICIBank Rs 3,250 cr loan controversy pic.twitter.com/sgd29byeWS

— CNBC-TV18 (@CNBCTV18Live) March 29, 2018

Shereen: Can you clarify for us when did your involvement with Supreme Energy end?

Dhoot: I don’t remember the date. I am not involved with Supreme Energy and I have not invested any money in Supreme Energy.

Latha: An Indian Express report says that you sold the stake after the investment in the debentures were made but you say that is incorrect.

Dhoot: That is all wrong information. I am too modest to say that Indian Express is wrong but these type of things should not be done. They need to check all these things.

Shereen: Has any investigative agency has reached out to you asking for clarifications? Have you been issued a show-cause notice with respect to your dealings with the NuPower, with respect to the transaction between you and Deepak Kochhar since 2016?

A: I swear and tell you that no agency has ever made any inquiry with me about this matter which you are talking about.

Shereen: Has the Reserve Bank of India raised any questions?

Dhoot: I am telling you that no questions were asked because I am not involved in this transaction.

Shereen: Can you explain to us why you chose to invest in Deepak Kochhar’s company to start with? Was there a joint venture or were you merely an investor in his company. Secondly, why did you choose to exit within a matter of a month or so?

Dhoot: At that time we were investing in various renewable energy companies. In Deepak Kochhar’s company too I had invested a few thousand rupees but I thought I have done too much and now I don’t want to go ahead, so I sold my shares. I don’t have any investment in Deepak Kochhar’s company today.

Latha: Just to reiterate, you say that when you owned Supreme Energy, at that time the company had not made any convertible debenture investment in NuPower?

Dhoot: I reiterate that when my investment was there (In Supreme Energy), at that time Rs 64 crore investment was not made by any Videocon company (In NuPower).

Shereen: We are reading out allegations that have been made by Dr Arvind Gupta to the Prime Minister and to other investigative agencies. We are asking you the questions because the allegations have been made publicly since 2016.

Dhoot: I understand there are thousands of questions and letters received by various government agencies every day; it must be one of that. I do not understand why he has written and where he has taken all these information from.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Ball tampering menace: Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, among top cricketers in list

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The international backlash following Australia captain Steve Smith’s confession to cheating during the third test against South Africa last weekend defies the fact that ball-tampering is about as old as the game of cricket itself.

The difference this time is that Australian players have been caught out, and that has shamed the fans who revered their national team and believed it to be above even the need to cheat.

There have been all kinds of methods used to try and make one side of the leather ball rougher — which assists the bowlers with extra swing — and the players charged in the past include some of the stars of the game.

Here’s a list of some of the higher-profile ball-tampering cases in the modern game.

Chris Pringle, New Zealand, 1990

The gentle medium pacer got away without any punishment despite admitting to ball tampering not long after making his test debut against Pakistan at Karachi.

Television technology was nowhere near as high-tech as it is now when every action of a player on the field can be closely monitored. And the on-field umpires were the sole adjudicators of test matches before the International Cricket Council started appointing match referees.

He took a career-best 11 wickets for 152 runs in the third test at Faisalabad’ on a batting friendly wicket, later revealing he’d used a bottle top to scratch the ball. He said he’d tampered with the ball because he believed Pakistani bowlers were also doing it. The late Martin Crowe acknowledged later that while he’d been ready to accept that Pakistan was a better team, “we were not going to accept what they were doing with the ball.”

Michael Atherton, England, 1994

The “dirt in the pocket” incident happened when the England captain took dirt off the pitch, put it in his pocket and was caught on camera using it on the ball.

Atherton was not fined or reprimanded by the ICC match referee Peter Burge, but the England Cricket Board took the sterner step of imposing a fine on Atherton.

It was one of the darker episodes in his career. But Atherton, working this month as an analyst during England’s two-test tour to New Zealand, has sympathized with the current Australia captain, describing calls for Smith to be banned for life as “ridiculous.”

Waqar Younis, Pakistan, 2000

Eight years after being first accused of ball tampering by the British media during a series against England, Pakistan fast bowler Waqar Younis became the first cricketer to be fined and suspended for the offence. New Zealand match referee John Reid fined Waqar, who was renowned for his prodigious swing, 50% of his match fee after finding him guilty of ball tampering in a limited-overs international against South Africa in Sri Lanka. Pakistan skipper captain Moin Khan and all-rounder Azhar Mehmood were handed 30% fines during the Singer Cup one-day match.

Reid reviewed TV footage, which showed Waqar apparently using his fingernails to scratch one side of the ball.

Waqar had avoided punishment after Reid had warned him of ball tampering during a test match against Sri Lanka earlier in the tournament. Waqar and team officials successfully argued on that occasion that the bowler was attempting to clean debris from the ball.

Sachin Tendulkar, India, 2001

Match referee Mike Denness was in the international cricket hot seat when he penalized five Indian players for excessive appealing and sanctioned Tendulkar for ball tampering during the second test against South Africa at Port Elizabeth. TV cameras showed Tendulkar cleaning the seam of the ball but, because he hadn’t notified umpires he was doing it, it fell under the regulations for altering the condition of the ball. The charge quickly became contentious, with serious backlash in India, where Tendulkar remains to this day an undisputed legend of the game. The ICC, after thoroughly investigating the matter, revoked the suspended one-game ban on Tendulkar.

Shoaib Akhtar, Pakistan, 2003

Fiery fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar was banned for two one-day internationals for scratching the surface of the ball during a game against New Zealand in Sri Lanka.

Later in his book “Controversially Yours,” Akhtar admitted that he was desperate and “began fussing with the ball” because it was hot and humid in Dambulla and the wicket was very slow.

Akhtar also said he knew it was against the rules and not something to be proud of. He also admitted he had tampered with the ball on many occasions during his playing days. “I can’t seem to help it. I have got to do something with the ball. I know this will make a big noise, but I won’t lie about it.”

Rahul Dravid, India, 2004

Rahul Dravid, who was nicknamed “The Wall” because of his unyielding approach to batting, was caught on camera applying lozenge on the ball while playing Zimbabwe in a one-day international in Australia. Match referee Clive Lloyd said that TV footage showed enough that the Indian captain intentionally applied the lozenge to the ball and was in breach of the code of conduct. He was found guilty and fined 50% of his match fee.

Pakistan team, 2006

In one of the most controversial episodes, the Pakistan team refused to play after being penalized for ball tampering during a test match against England at The Oval. Umpires Darrel Hair and Billy Doctrove awarded the test match to England. The controversy started when both umpires discussed the condition of the ball, changed it and awarded five penalty runs to England. Play continued without any protest from Pakistan until the tea break. During the interval, though, Pakistan players discussed the penalty and believed they hadn’t tampered with the ball. They refused to take the field and after umpires waited in the middle for 15 minutes, the result was awarded in England’s favour. By the time Pakistan players agreed to return to the field, umpires told them the match was over. Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq said umpire Hair didn’t give him details of the alleged tampering. It was for the first time in the history of so-called gentleman’s game that a test match was decided in this manner.

Stuart Broad, England, 2010

The England fast bowler faced accusations of ball tampering when he appeared to step on the ball with the spikes of his boot during a test match against South Africa at Cape Town. Broad stopped a rolling ball with his foot before he stood on it. He argued that he was a bit lazy because of the extreme heat and denied tampering with the ball.

No formal charges were laid despite complaints from the South Africans. Former England captain Nasser Hussain said that he had no doubt the fast bowler was wrong and “if a player from another country did the same, we’d have said they were cheating.”

Shahid Afridi, Pakistan, 2010

Afridi was banned for two one-day internationals after appearing to bite the ball twice during his team’s two-wicket loss to Australia in Perth. A TV umpire informed the on-field umpires, who discussed the matter with Afridi and the ball was changed. Afridi was summoned by match referee Ranjan Madugalle after the match, pleaded guilty to the charge, apologized and said he regretted the incident. Afridi later said there’s no team in the world which doesn’t tamper with the ball, but “my methods were wrong, I am embarrassed, I shouldn’t have done it. I just wanted to win us a game but this was the wrong way to do it.”

Faf du Plessis, South Africa, 2016

The South Africa captain was fined 100% of his match and also given three demerit points for ball tampering during the second test against Australia. Television footage showed du Plessis sucking on candy, sticking fingers into his mouth and then using his saliva to shine the ball. He had fined previously in 2013 for scuffing the ball on the zip of his trousers in a match Pakistan.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Indian cricket board bans disgraced Australian cricketers from IPL

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

India’s cricket authorities have barred Australian cricketers Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft from this season’s IPL after they were suspended for ball tampering during a test series in South Africa.

Cricket Australia on Wednesday announced it had banned Smith and Warner for 12 months and Bancroft for nine months from all competition in Australia except club cricket. IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla said Indian officials subsequently extended the ban to their lucrative Twenty20 league.

IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla was quoted by the Press Trust of India as saying, “First, we waited for ICC’s decision, after that Cricket Australia and then we decided on the matter,” he said.

The International Cricket Council banned Smith for one test and fined Bancroft for their attempts to tamper with the ball during the third test against South Africa in Cape Town during the weekend. The pair confessed to be involved in a plan to change the condition of the ball, and Cricket Australia launched its own investigation following outrage at home and abroad.

Warner was later found to be the instigator of the plan. The combative opener has already lost a personal sponsor and had stood down as captain of the IPL’s Sunrisers Hyderabad. Smith had already relinquished the captaincy of the IPL’s Rajasthan Royals.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Paid all applicable taxes, I-T dept’s position without merit, says Cognizant

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

US-based IT firm Cognizant said it paid all applicable taxes related to its buyback transaction in 2016 and the Indian Income Tax Department’s (ITD) position is “contrary to law and without merit”.

The tech giant’s comments follow ITD’s freezing its certain bank accounts in the country over a dispute on payment of dividend distribution tax (DDT) running into hundreds of crores.

Cognizant said it will “continue to vigorously defend itself and will pursue all available legal remedies”.

The tax issue pertains to unpaid dues around share purchases done by its subsidiary, Cognizant Technology Solutions India, which had bought back shares from foreign owners — Cognizant Mauritius and the US-based parent Cognizant Technology Solutions (CTS).

Cognizant is headquartered in the US but a majority of its total employees (2.6 lakh people) are based in India.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow