New Delhi: The National Herald case took a new turn with former Law minister Shanti Bhushan saying that he plans to challenge the transfer of ownership rights of the Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) to Young Indian Ltd (YIL), terming it an “illegal” deal.
Bhushan's comments came after he claimed to have inherited shares in AJL, which published the National Herald, from his father and that shareholders of the AJL were not informed of the transfer. “The transfer of control and shares from a large number of patriotic people to a family is totally illegal,” Bhushan said, referring to the transfer of AJL shares to the Sonia and Rahul Gandhi-controlled Young India.
However, Bhushan's claims were soon countered by senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal who questioned Bhushan's silence on the matter so far. “Shanti Bhushan must have seen Subramanian Swamy claiming that the AJL assets are worth over Rs 5,000 crore. Going by that claim, a share of AJL should value at a very high level. If so, why didn't Bhushan choose, so far, not to claim his so-called shares?” Sibal said, questioning Bhushan's move.
Bhushan had earlier claimed that his father had five preferential shares in AJL and that he had “just received” the original list of shareholders. "I have just got the original shareholders list. Jawaharlal Nehru had three preferential shares worth Rs 300, my father had five preferential shares worth Rs 500 and Kailash Nath Katju had seven preferential shares and 131 ordinary shares worth Rs 2,000,” he said.
Bhushan further said that he would soon approach the Company Law Board to get the heir substituted before initiating legal proceedings. “We (share holders) have to get the heirs substituted before we can start legal proceedings which will take a couple of months... we will go to the company law board,” Bhushan had said.
However, Sibal, who is also the counsel for Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald case, cast aspersions on Bhushan's move asking how he could directly move court before settling his claim by moving a complaint with the Company Law Board. Moving court, Sibal said, would also require 10 per cent support of other shareholders, which Bhushan did not have.
“Why is he making this claim now? If he indeed was a shareholder, why didn't he, so far, attend the AJHL shareholders' meeting? After all, the meetings of the AJL have been always duly informed to shareholders in their given addresses," Sibal added.
(With agency inputs)
