The Harshad Mehta case: Where time has overtaken justice by a mile

The Big Bull is long dead and his brother has had time to become a lawyer and argue his case. Banks and financial institutions are yet to get their money back. The 1992 stock market scandal shook the nation, but the wheels of justice grind slow, write Shailesh Menon and Maulik Vyas.

"The overseer is attempting to cripple us and debilitate us monetarily," he had told the court, throwing a look at caretaker's seat. He argued to the court to consider his 'downsizing' application which, he trusts, could cut down the "piercing cases" of I-T Department. On the off chance that Ashwin seemed like a legal counselor that day, it was on the grounds that he had gotten one. He had verified a degree in law – in his mid-50s - to mount a decided battle against loan bosses. That one of the heroes of a case.

A FIGHT TO THE FINISH
The Special Court was instituted through an Ordinance on June 6, 1992 (known as ‘Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Ordinance’.The CBI recorded charges against different intermediaries specifically AD Narottam, Bhupen Dalal, Hiten Dalal and Naresh Aggarwal, among others, for participating in the trick, though for a lot littler entireties of cash. A portion of these cases are as yet being sought after by the gatherings concerned. The Harshad Mehta case stands apart absolutely because of its size — the whole of cash and the profile of the blamed. The court-designated overseer has been at its specific employment for more than 24 years now. Occasionally, the caretaker.According to the custodian’s report (number 26), released on January 8, 2016, the Harshad Mehta family has assets worth Rs 1,723.84 crore and total liabilities of around Rs 16,044 crore. The family has to pay 4662 crore to various banks and about Rs 11,174 crore to IT Department (mainly interest accrued and penalties).As on September 2015, the banks were decreed (by Court) to get Rs 1,688 crore, out of which Rs 1,074 crore has already been paid on condition that sum

The bone of contention, if one goes by Ashwin Mehta’s court submissions, is the “high-pitched claims” made by IT Department in its assessment reports. According to Mehta, the IT department has calculated tax liability purely taking into account the revenues of Harshad Mehta (and his affiliate companies) — and not his income.

Harshad Mehta was a broker with significant clientele in the 90s. When the scam erupted, the valuers seemingly failed to segregate Harshad Mehta’s client trades and personal dealings. All trades done between 1991 and 1992 were clubbed as Harshad’s personal trades – and taxed accordingly, at higher tax slabs prevalent in the 90s.
That said, the valuers cannot be blamed as Harshad Mehta did not keep a neat book of accounts. There was no legible way for valuers to distinguish between Harsh.