Disclaimer / Clarification/ Refutation of Allegations
Every few years, either during elections or when I advocate a cause that goes against some vested interests and steps on some toes, I get attacked. Usually, these consist of recycled allegations which have been refuted before. Nevertheless, online trolls apart, there are many decent people who may not be aware of earlier refutations and thus legitimatelyhave questions. I’ve decided to summarise the clarifications/refutations and put them up here on my website, to which all genuine questioners can be referred.
“Outstanding Bank Loans”
In the 1980s, one of two operating companies in the family businesses in which i inherited shares (along with several other relatives) became sick due to dispute / unavailability of raw materials. There was no malfeasance whatsoever, but due to non-availability of raw materials, the company (ICCL) operated far below capacity and also remained closed for long periods. Years later, in 1999 the Supreme Court ruled in its favour and it began operating again after a Corporate Debt Restructuring. The CDR was as per norms and involved partial debt write down (mostly penal interest, but not other components like forex fluctuation or principal). This was matched with shareholders agreeing to forfeit 50% of their shares*, and also committing 85% of the earnings of the other group company (IMFA) for the CDR rehab package. Subsequently, the restructured debt was repaid and the two companies were merged.
“Electricity Dues Waiver”
One of the companies in the family business group mentioned above (IMFA) had a legal dispute with the state electricity board (later unbundled and partially privatised) in Odisha. The grounds that the billing was in contravention of the supply agreement as well as accounting principles was upheld unanimously by court-ordered arbitration, which in fact stipulated that the company receive a refund. However, inaccurate media coverage had caused many people to believe that there was some kind of ‘waiver’ of electricity dues, which was simply not the case.
“13 Acres Land”
In 1980, one of the companies in the family business group (IMFA) acquired (and subsequently merged with itself) a loss making company, the erstwhile Kalinga Tubes Ltd. In the process, it acquired KTL’s campus of nearly 300 acres (established in the 1950s) where it today has a manufacturing plant. In 1976 KTL had initiated legal proceedings (later IMFA automatically substituted it in the case) relating to the inaccurate recording of a small portion of land and this was adjudicated in favour of the company in 1990, so there is no doubt on the ownership of the land.
I trust this answers those who have genuine questions. The above facts are true, accurate, and can be verified.Nevertheless, I have experienced at times, even after clarifying/refuting allegations, efforts by some to draw me into further arguments, which I do not entertain.