SC dismisses recovery plea against Ketan Parekh | business | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
May 27, 2017-Saturday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

SC dismisses recovery plea against Ketan Parekh

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by a stock broking firm seeking recovery of around Rs 25 lakh from Ketan Parekh, the main accused in the 2001 stock market scam.

business Updated: Oct 26, 2008 13:25 IST

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by a stock broking firm seeking recovery of around Rs 25 lakh from Ketan Parekh, the main accused in the 2001 stock market scam.

A bench headed by Justice B N Agarwal refused to give any relief to Citer Holdings Pvt Ltd, a sub-broker trading in stocks through Parekh, which had challenged the Bombay High Court's judgement that condoned the delay of 325 days on the part of Parekh in filing the appeal.

According to the firm, Parekh had produced false and concocted bills, certificates of doctors, medical records of his mother and daughter to bridge the lacuna and substantiate delay.

It further said that Parekh was neither forthcoming nor allowing inspection of documents and the High Court had also failed to look into the genuineness of the averments made in condonation of delay application.

The certificate given by one Dr SK Patel does not disclose anything about hospitalisation of Parekh's daughter between April 4 and October 2005 and "special efforts are made to get endorsement of the doctor regarding attendance of the child by Parekh to cover up the unprecedented and unexplained delay," the petition filed through counsel Abhijat Medh and Shridhar Y Chitale stated.

According to the counsel, the High Court failed to notice that Parekh had given an unbelievable story that the doctors in Mumbai had expressed their inability to provide any cure to his daughter's cerebral epilepsy, he said.

"It is inconceivable that doctors in Bombay would not treat the patient and a surgeon in Patan, a small town in Gujarat, having no facility would treat the child, when Dr Patel himself refers his patients to Ahmedabad hospitals," Citer said, adding "it is also inconceivable that any parents would take the child for treatment to Patan having no facility and to a doctor who is a surgeon".

Stating that the entire case put up by Parekh was an after-thought to hoodwink and mislead in suppressing the delay, Chitley said that the high court had lost sight of the fact that it was unlikely that a cardiologist would issue a certificate on the basis of an operation done upon his mother by an oncologist.

While the arbiter tribunal of the Bombay Stock Exchange had dismissed Citer Holding's claim plea, the appellate bench in June 2004 had directed Parekh to pay it more than Rs 18.64 lakh with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from April 2001 till the date of payment or realisation.

Even the single judge bench of the Bombay High Court had dismissed Parekh's petition seeking arbitration in the matter.

However, the division bench, on an appeal by Parekh, had condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that "there was no case of inaction, negligence or want of bona fide on the part of Parekh".