Some events of the past, shed light on the kind of ambitions that Indira Gandhi's "Innocent" and "reticent" bahu has nurtured for long and of how she had no qualms about breaking laws which put the fear of God even among natural-born Indians. The first of these relates to the launch of a company called the Maruti technical services private limited (MTSPL) on November 16, 1970. 3
This private limited company was set up by her along with Sanjay Gandhi to provide technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly of "a wholly indigenous motor car". The story of this company provides one some valuable insights into the mind of Sonia Gandhi, who is often credited with much innocence and gullibility by those around her. 3
The birth of MTSPL preceded that of another company, the Maruti limited, which was to avail of this company's "know-how" to produce cars. The articles of association of MTSPL named Sanjay and Sonia as the first and permanent directors of the company, who between them held 20 shares of Rs 10 each. In other words, its paid-up capital was Rs 200 at the time of its launch. 3
On November 21, 1970, just days after its incorporation, the MTSPL entered into an agreement with Sanjay Gandhi, who owned 50 per cent of it. Under this agreement, Sanjay agreed to render "technical know-how" to the company for a consideration of Rs 3 lakh. 3
Months later, in June, 1971, the Maruti limited was incorporated under the Companies Act and Sanjay Gandhi became its managing director. 3
On December 15, 1971, the MTSPL, the "know-how" company, allotted 1500 equity shares of Rs 10 each to Sanjay Gandhi. On June 2, 1972, the MTSPL entered into an agreement with Maruti limited according to which the MTSPL was to be paid Rs 5 lakh in lump sum by the latter for providing the technical know-how to Maruti limited. This document described the MTSPL of which Sanjay and Sonia were the only directors, as a technical company "which has the capability of impacting technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly in India of a wholly indigenous motor car." It was also entitled to an annual technical fee of 2 per cent of the net sales of the motor cars. Six weeks after this agreement, the Maruti limited paid the promised Rs 5 lakh to the MTSPL. 3
Later, the MTSPL kept its word and paid Sanjay Gandhi, its half owner, Rs 3 lakh in order to purchase "technical know-how" from him! 3
The next move came about a year later. The MTSPL appointed the owner of its other half, Sonia Gandhi, its managing director. This happened at an "extraordinary general meeting of the share holders" held on January 25, 1973. Suffice it to say that Sanjay and Sonia, the two directors, were also the only share-holders of the company at that time. Soon thereafter. the MTSPL signed an agreement with Sonia Gandhi as per which she was to remain the managing director of the company for five years. She was to get a salary of Rs 2000 per month and one per cent commission on the net profits of the company subject to a limit of 50 per cent of her annual salary plus perquisites. 3
Sometime later the company allotted 2000 shares to Sonia Gandhi, but for some reason this was later subdivided into two share certificates of 1900 and 100 shares respectively and 1900 shares were allotted to Sonia on February 4, 1974. On the same day 4000 shares each were allotted to Priyanka and Rahul, the two minor children of Sonia and Rajiv. Even more fascinating was the decision of the Nehru-Gandhi family to launch yet another company, to make among other things, road rollers, and to appoint Sonia Gandhi as managing director of this firm as well. 3
This company, called the Maruti heavy vehicles private limited, had 13 share-holders but the Nehru-Gandhis had the controlling shares. 3
It was incorporated on February 22, 1974 and Sonia Gandhi acquired 5000 shares in it. She entered into an agreement with this company on September 28, 1974 in regard to her appointment as its MD. 3
But this agreement was not implemented and she did not draw any salary as MD of this company. 3
In 1975, this "road roller company" too sought out the Maruti technical services Company, the "know-how" company, in search of know-how to make road rollers. 3
An agreement was signed on April 1, 1975 between the two companies as per which the road roller company was to pay the know-how company two per cent of net sales of road rollers and spare parts. 3
Did Sonia Gandhi, who was then a citizen of Italy, violate any Indian laws by becoming the managing director of an Indian company and by acquiring shares in Indian companies? Was the MTSPL, which was floated by Sanjay and Sonia, ever competent, to provide technical know-how to make "a wholly indigenous motor car" and road rollers? Was Sonia Gandhi competent to be the managing director of such companies? 3
A commission of inquiry headed by justice A C Gupta, which probed the Maruti scandal and submitted its report in 1978, provides the answers to all these questions. The commission's report says S M Rege, who was secretary of the Maruti limited, told the commission that it was known to all concerned that Shrimati Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national and not a citizen of India. S Kumar, registrar of companies, Delhi and Haryana, said the allotment of shares of the MTSPL and MHVPL to Gandhi in 1974 was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation act, 1973 "and therefore ab initio void". 3
The commission concluded thus: "It was a fact known to all concerned that Shrimati Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national. In view of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which came into force on January 1, 1974, she could neither hold shares of any Indian company nor hold any office of profit in such company from the date the act came into force without the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India. Ultimately, she tendered her resignation on January. 21, 1975. 3
Section 28(1) of the FERA said a person who is not a citizen of India "She not, except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank act or accept appointment as technical or management adviser in India of any person or company. Section 29(1) of the act prohibited foreigners from acquiring shares of any company. Yet, she continued as managing director and resigned only on January 21, 1975. She had thus violated FERA for over a year. Section 56 of the act, which lists the punishment for contravention FERA, says that violations of this nature can attract imprisonment for periods ranging from six months to seven years. 4
It is surprising that Shrimati Sonia Gandhi who did not have any technical qualification should be appointed managing director of a technical company. Quite a large sum of money was paid to her on account of her salary and perquisites during the period she remained the managing director of the company". 3
The Gupta commission report further records that A Banerjee, income-tax officer, disallowed part of the remuneration paid to Shrimati Sonia Gandhi as excessive "because she had no qualifications to be able to render any technical service to the company." 3
The commission also examined the question as to whether the MTSPL floated by Sanjay and Sonia was competent to provide the know-how to make cars and road rollers. 3
W H F Muller, a German technician on the staff of the MTSPL told the commission that all that the Maruti limited produced were 10 to 12 prototypes which were "hand-made", "fabricated/purchased in parts" and not of the same design. They were different from one another. Yet another witness said the MTSPL had no qualified graduate engineer for design on their rolls. There was no fixed and finalised design for the vehicles and no research and development facility. 3
Yet, dealers were recruited and asked to set up show-rooms "to create an impression that the appearance of the Maruti car in the market was imminent". Two such dealers, who were given cars to exhibit in their show-room, narrated their experience to the commission. "One had to push the car to his show-room, and the other who returned the car to the Maruti garage for repairs following a brake failure while he was driving, did not get back either the car or the money (Rs 22,000) he had paid for it." 3
The commission also spoke about the rough and ready methods used by the Maruti limited against dealers who wanted to back out. "One of the dealers, S C Agarwal, who terminated his agency, was threatened by Sanjay Gandhi that he would be sent to jail and Agarwal had to apologise to him by touching his feet. Om Prakash Gupta of Hapur who had asked for payment of interest due to him on his security deposit, was arrested under the Maintenance of internal Security Act". 3
Witnesses also told the commission that the MTSPL did not have any technically qualified person or specialist on road-rollers. 3
The commission, therefore, concluded that the " Maruti Technical Services was not competent to render technical know-how in respect of motor cars. There is no evidence that it had the know-how in respect of road rollers." 3
The Maruti cars that one sees on the road today came to be produced after the central government took over the Maruti limited and brought in genuine "know-how" from Japan. 3
But as we all know the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has got birth right to loot this country like their fiefdom. If normal citizen like you or me had done these kind of offence then would have been behind the bar for a sufficient long period.But now she can say that it was training period for her to get acquainted with the way Gandhi Nehru Dynasty used to loot the country. She can also say to defend her that papers where not prepared in Italian. It was in English or Hindi. That is why she signed those papers and she was innocent. Unfortunately the courts in India also are not able to do any thing on such occasions. They also take such arguments very seriously especially if it is being made on behalf of an Elitist family. "Every person is Innocent until his guilty is proved" this is rule of justice. This rule becomes as powerful as the person on whose behalf, argument is made. The courts are also aware how during the period of Emergency Indira treated Judiciary.
This private limited company was set up by her along with Sanjay Gandhi to provide technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly of "a wholly indigenous motor car". The story of this company provides one some valuable insights into the mind of Sonia Gandhi, who is often credited with much innocence and gullibility by those around her. 3
The birth of MTSPL preceded that of another company, the Maruti limited, which was to avail of this company's "know-how" to produce cars. The articles of association of MTSPL named Sanjay and Sonia as the first and permanent directors of the company, who between them held 20 shares of Rs 10 each. In other words, its paid-up capital was Rs 200 at the time of its launch. 3
On November 21, 1970, just days after its incorporation, the MTSPL entered into an agreement with Sanjay Gandhi, who owned 50 per cent of it. Under this agreement, Sanjay agreed to render "technical know-how" to the company for a consideration of Rs 3 lakh. 3
Months later, in June, 1971, the Maruti limited was incorporated under the Companies Act and Sanjay Gandhi became its managing director. 3
On December 15, 1971, the MTSPL, the "know-how" company, allotted 1500 equity shares of Rs 10 each to Sanjay Gandhi. On June 2, 1972, the MTSPL entered into an agreement with Maruti limited according to which the MTSPL was to be paid Rs 5 lakh in lump sum by the latter for providing the technical know-how to Maruti limited. This document described the MTSPL of which Sanjay and Sonia were the only directors, as a technical company "which has the capability of impacting technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly in India of a wholly indigenous motor car." It was also entitled to an annual technical fee of 2 per cent of the net sales of the motor cars. Six weeks after this agreement, the Maruti limited paid the promised Rs 5 lakh to the MTSPL. 3
Later, the MTSPL kept its word and paid Sanjay Gandhi, its half owner, Rs 3 lakh in order to purchase "technical know-how" from him! 3
The next move came about a year later. The MTSPL appointed the owner of its other half, Sonia Gandhi, its managing director. This happened at an "extraordinary general meeting of the share holders" held on January 25, 1973. Suffice it to say that Sanjay and Sonia, the two directors, were also the only share-holders of the company at that time. Soon thereafter. the MTSPL signed an agreement with Sonia Gandhi as per which she was to remain the managing director of the company for five years. She was to get a salary of Rs 2000 per month and one per cent commission on the net profits of the company subject to a limit of 50 per cent of her annual salary plus perquisites. 3
Sometime later the company allotted 2000 shares to Sonia Gandhi, but for some reason this was later subdivided into two share certificates of 1900 and 100 shares respectively and 1900 shares were allotted to Sonia on February 4, 1974. On the same day 4000 shares each were allotted to Priyanka and Rahul, the two minor children of Sonia and Rajiv. Even more fascinating was the decision of the Nehru-Gandhi family to launch yet another company, to make among other things, road rollers, and to appoint Sonia Gandhi as managing director of this firm as well. 3
This company, called the Maruti heavy vehicles private limited, had 13 share-holders but the Nehru-Gandhis had the controlling shares. 3
It was incorporated on February 22, 1974 and Sonia Gandhi acquired 5000 shares in it. She entered into an agreement with this company on September 28, 1974 in regard to her appointment as its MD. 3
But this agreement was not implemented and she did not draw any salary as MD of this company. 3
In 1975, this "road roller company" too sought out the Maruti technical services Company, the "know-how" company, in search of know-how to make road rollers. 3
An agreement was signed on April 1, 1975 between the two companies as per which the road roller company was to pay the know-how company two per cent of net sales of road rollers and spare parts. 3
Did Sonia Gandhi, who was then a citizen of Italy, violate any Indian laws by becoming the managing director of an Indian company and by acquiring shares in Indian companies? Was the MTSPL, which was floated by Sanjay and Sonia, ever competent, to provide technical know-how to make "a wholly indigenous motor car" and road rollers? Was Sonia Gandhi competent to be the managing director of such companies? 3
A commission of inquiry headed by justice A C Gupta, which probed the Maruti scandal and submitted its report in 1978, provides the answers to all these questions. The commission's report says S M Rege, who was secretary of the Maruti limited, told the commission that it was known to all concerned that Shrimati Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national and not a citizen of India. S Kumar, registrar of companies, Delhi and Haryana, said the allotment of shares of the MTSPL and MHVPL to Gandhi in 1974 was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation act, 1973 "and therefore ab initio void". 3
The commission concluded thus: "It was a fact known to all concerned that Shrimati Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national. In view of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which came into force on January 1, 1974, she could neither hold shares of any Indian company nor hold any office of profit in such company from the date the act came into force without the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India. Ultimately, she tendered her resignation on January. 21, 1975. 3
Section 28(1) of the FERA said a person who is not a citizen of India "She not, except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank act or accept appointment as technical or management adviser in India of any person or company. Section 29(1) of the act prohibited foreigners from acquiring shares of any company. Yet, she continued as managing director and resigned only on January 21, 1975. She had thus violated FERA for over a year. Section 56 of the act, which lists the punishment for contravention FERA, says that violations of this nature can attract imprisonment for periods ranging from six months to seven years. 4
It is surprising that Shrimati Sonia Gandhi who did not have any technical qualification should be appointed managing director of a technical company. Quite a large sum of money was paid to her on account of her salary and perquisites during the period she remained the managing director of the company". 3
The Gupta commission report further records that A Banerjee, income-tax officer, disallowed part of the remuneration paid to Shrimati Sonia Gandhi as excessive "because she had no qualifications to be able to render any technical service to the company." 3
The commission also examined the question as to whether the MTSPL floated by Sanjay and Sonia was competent to provide the know-how to make cars and road rollers. 3
W H F Muller, a German technician on the staff of the MTSPL told the commission that all that the Maruti limited produced were 10 to 12 prototypes which were "hand-made", "fabricated/purchased in parts" and not of the same design. They were different from one another. Yet another witness said the MTSPL had no qualified graduate engineer for design on their rolls. There was no fixed and finalised design for the vehicles and no research and development facility. 3
Yet, dealers were recruited and asked to set up show-rooms "to create an impression that the appearance of the Maruti car in the market was imminent". Two such dealers, who were given cars to exhibit in their show-room, narrated their experience to the commission. "One had to push the car to his show-room, and the other who returned the car to the Maruti garage for repairs following a brake failure while he was driving, did not get back either the car or the money (Rs 22,000) he had paid for it." 3
The commission also spoke about the rough and ready methods used by the Maruti limited against dealers who wanted to back out. "One of the dealers, S C Agarwal, who terminated his agency, was threatened by Sanjay Gandhi that he would be sent to jail and Agarwal had to apologise to him by touching his feet. Om Prakash Gupta of Hapur who had asked for payment of interest due to him on his security deposit, was arrested under the Maintenance of internal Security Act". 3
Witnesses also told the commission that the MTSPL did not have any technically qualified person or specialist on road-rollers. 3
The commission, therefore, concluded that the " Maruti Technical Services was not competent to render technical know-how in respect of motor cars. There is no evidence that it had the know-how in respect of road rollers." 3
The Maruti cars that one sees on the road today came to be produced after the central government took over the Maruti limited and brought in genuine "know-how" from Japan. 3
But as we all know the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has got birth right to loot this country like their fiefdom. If normal citizen like you or me had done these kind of offence then would have been behind the bar for a sufficient long period.But now she can say that it was training period for her to get acquainted with the way Gandhi Nehru Dynasty used to loot the country. She can also say to defend her that papers where not prepared in Italian. It was in English or Hindi. That is why she signed those papers and she was innocent. Unfortunately the courts in India also are not able to do any thing on such occasions. They also take such arguments very seriously especially if it is being made on behalf of an Elitist family. "Every person is Innocent until his guilty is proved" this is rule of justice. This rule becomes as powerful as the person on whose behalf, argument is made. The courts are also aware how during the period of Emergency Indira treated Judiciary.
To see all articles of writer visit www.bharatsangh.com
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe article does not mention that the ITO A Banerjee was the only authority to have been alert enough to summon WHF Muller and record hisvswoen statement.
ReplyDelete