TT Epaper
The Telegraph
Graphiti
 
CIMA Gallary

Lens on debenture firm

Calcutta, June 5: Calcutta High Court today held that there was enough reason for the CBI to include Mangalam Agro Finance in the ambit of the agency’s inquiry into non-banking financial institutions.

The court also directed the company’s debenture-holders to lodge a complaint with the CBI.

After hearing a case lodged by debenture-holders last week seeking to bring Mangalam Agro Finance under the purview of the CBI’s probe, Justice Nadira Patherya ruled that the activities of the company were similar to the deposit-mobilising firms under the investigating agency’s scanner.

The Supreme Court had last month handed over the Saradha default probe to the CBI, which is also investigating complaints against 43 other cash-collection companies.

Thousands of debenture-holders of Mangalam Agro Finance, who alleged that they had not been given the assured amount on maturity, had filed a case in the high court requesting that the company be included in the ambit of the CBI probe.

Around 75 debenture-holders were present in court today.

Justice Patherya today ordered that a representative of the CBI must inform the court during the next hearing on June 10 about the action the agency planned to take on the debenture-holders’ complaint.

Director arrested

Police have arrested a director of Sumangal Industries Limited, a Calcutta-based fund-mobilising company, from her paternal home in Kulti near Asansol following a complaint by a depositor who alleged that he had not been paid upon maturity of his policy.

Acting on a tip-off, the police raided the house and arrested Madhumita Adhikary. Her husband and owner of the company, Subrata, had fled before they reached. Madhumita was today produced in the Asansol additional chief judicial magistrate’s court, which granted her bail. But since she could not provide any surety, she was sent to jail custody.

The depositor, professor Ramdulal Basu of Raniganj, told the police he had purchased a potato bond of Rs 1 lakh in 2012 on the condition that the company would refund the amount within a year along with 20 per cent interest. However, the company neither refunded the money nor paid the interest after the policy matured on April 24 last year.