Andhra Pradesh government rejects AgriGold's proposal

Hyderabad: In a setback to the Essel-Zee Group’s Subhash Chandra Foundation, the AP government on Tuesday informed the Hyderabad High Court that it has decided not to accept the proposal of the Group to takeover the  AgriGold Group of companies by paying Rs 4,000 crore in a phased manner.

CID additional DG Amit Garg filed an affidavit before a division bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice S.V. Bhatt pursuant to its direction on August 3, 2018, to spell out the stand of the state government on the proposal of the Essel Group.

The bench directed the petitioners and the state government to spell out their stand on the proposal while dealing with petitions by the depositors and agents who were seeking a CBI probe into the fraud allegedly committed by AgriGold companies.

Mr. Garg told the court that the apprehension of the state was that the Essel Group was seeking to enter into the shoes of the AgriGold Companies through the approval of the court on the promise of repaying all the depositors slab- wise over a period of four and a half years which was difficult to believe having regard to the conduct of the Essel Group in this issue and experience of the State in the PIL.

While citing various contradictory statements made by the Essel Group in this case, the CID chief reminded that the Essel Group (intervener) at one stage decided to withdraw his move to takeover the properties claiming that it was not feasible to them and later the intervener taken “U-turn” and filed another affidavit for taking over the assets of the AgriGold.

He submitted that the AP government was also apprehensive that if this proposal were to be accepted as it is or with modifications, if any, it would result in a situation where the state will reach a point of no return and would be dependent on the intervener having entered into an understanding and lapse if any would only further complicate the issues and situation with the interest of the depositors taking a back seat.

The petitioners in their affidavit told the court that the change of stand by the intervener has caused huge confusion among the depositors all over India and the time and money proposed by the intervener is not at all acceptable to the petitioner and depositors.

While suggesting certain modifications for the proposal of intervener, the petitioner submitted that since the CID has found that Agrigold properties are generating more than a Crore per month for seven properties and that money must be recovered and it should be deposited in the bank account of this court.

Senior counsel P. Sri Raghuram appearing for the Essel Group submitted that they would file reply on the affidavits of petitioner and the state government.

Stating that they are still interested in taking the properties of the company, the government has misunderstood their proposal for making it as a partner in the joint venture.

 While directing the Essel Group to come out with concrete proposal , the bench posted the case to  September 17.