Harshad’s sis-in-law fights court battle to clear name‘Big Bull’ Harshad Mehta died six years ago, but his sister-in-law was in High Court on Friday, fighting a court battle to be exempted from being associated with his “illegal security transactions”.
Rina Mehta, wife of Harshad’s youngest brother, Sudhir, challenged the notification issued by court-appointed custodian Rekha Gupta.
Dated January 4, 2007, it has named her among those involved in the securities transactions (not offences) done by Harshad between April 1,1991 and June 6, 1992 — the peak period before the stock market crash.
In her application to Bombay High Court, she stated that on June 8, 1992, the custodian, appointed under the Special Court (trial of offences relating to transactions in securities) Act, 1992, had issued a notification containing the names of Harshad, his family members and 29 corporate entities promoted by them. However, her name had not featured in that notification.
Rina, a housewife, said that the custodian moved HC in 2006, saying that she was a benami holder of Harshad’s assets, which were to be utilised for discharging his liabilities. The case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that intermingling of funds was not enough proof of her involvement in the transactions.
Rina’s advocate MM Vashi told the court on Friday, “The accounts were frozen with the custodian and CBI, and the former has known it for 14 years.” He urged the court to quash the custodian’s delayed notification of 2007.
Rina’s petition said that although her name was never notified by the custodian earlier, most of her bank accounts, fixed deposits, shares and debentures had been wrongly attached by CBI since June 1992.
She has contended that the notification of January 2007 meant “commercial death”, as it affected her trade and business.
Arguing on behalf of the custodian, solicitor general Ghoolam Vahanvati said, “Keeping in mind that public funds were used in connivance with the officers of banks and other financial institutions, the notification does make sense.”
The court asked both parties to give written submissions, and adjourned the case till February 22.
j_mayura@dnaindia.net
