|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Channels: Astrology | Broadband | Contests | E-cards | Money | Movies | Romance | Search | Wedding | Women Partner Channels: Bill Pay | Health | IT Education | Jobs | Travel |
||
|
|
||
|
Home >
Money > Business Headlines > Report August 17, 2001 |
Feedback
|
|
|
HC tells cops to probe Ashwin Muthiah in finance company default caseN Sathiya Moorthy in Madras The Madras high court has directed the Tamil Nadu police to investigate SPIC vice-chairman Ashwin Muthiah in the Rs 1.16-billion dues owed to depositors by the failed MCC Finance, of which he is a director. The court has also directed the Official Liquidator of MCC to launch proceedings for the possible attachment of Rs 2.30-billion overseas properties held by two other finance companies under Ashwin Muthiah's control. Observing that Ashwin Muthiah, son of SPIC chairman A C Muthiah, was yet to appear before the court and had not been interrogated by the police, Justice T Jayasimha Babu also referred to the submission that MCC Finance could bring in Rs 300 million through the two other investment companies from Channel Islands, for providing security for a HDFC loan. That was before MCC started facing problems, but the properties would be enough to meet the outstanding to the depositors, comprising principal and interest, the court said. The trouble started after MCC passed hands from A C Muthiah and Ashwin, to their kin-by-marriage, Vadivel and the latter's son Jawahar Vadivel, some years back. Arrested after the depositors moved the court and the police, the Vadivels promised to pay up Rs 50 million a month, apart from the Rs 100 million paid up for their bail, for facilitating further repayments. With this money, only 15 per cent of the dues could be settled for the depositors. The Provincial Liquidator later moved the court for violation of their promise to dispose of 33-acre property owned by group company, Automobile Parts of India, in Bombay, also in the control of Ashwin Muthiah and whose value was put at Rs 2 billion. The court struck down the plea of the accused for changing the provincial liquidator, and has asked the liquidator, instead, to move for the disposal of the property, to make up for the funds due to the depositors. |
||||