A former Registrar of Companies official on Tuesday refuted in a Delhi court Unitech Ltd MD Sanjay Chandra's allegation that he had acted at the behest of the CBI in writing some words on documernts relating to the change in the object clause of some alleged Unitech group firms.
Former Deputy RoC Vinay Kumar Gupta refuted Chandra's allegations, made during recording of his evidence, that he had acted at the behest of the CBI to bolster its case.
Testifying as prosecution witness, Gupta said he himself had written the words "subject to change of name" on the certificates of registration of special resolution confirming alteration of object clause of the seven companies.
According to the CBI, Unitech Builders and Estates (P) Ltd, Hudson Properties Ltd, Volga Properties (P) Ltd, Adonis Projects (P) Ltd, Nahan Properties (P) Ltd, Aska Projects Ltd, Unitech Infrastructures (P) Ltd and Azare Properties Ltd had merged into Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt Ltd, accused in the 2G case, after securing the UAS Licences.
"My statement was recorded by the investigating officer (IO) when I went to the CBI on March 31, 2011. I do not know if the charge sheet in the instant case was filed after two days of my statement.
"It is wrong to suggest that my interpolation in aforesaid certificates was done by me at the instance of the IO to suit the prosecution case," he told Special CBI Judge O P Saini.
He said although he himself had written the remarks on the certificates, but there was no provision in the Companies Act to do so.
"The format of certificate is complete in itself, however, if after examination, it is found that something is lacking, handwritten remarks can be added. There is no provision either in Companies Act or in any rule made thereunder to make such remarks in hand, but this is the practice in RoC offices," he said.
Gupta, whose recording of statement concluded today, said he had added "subject to change of name" on the certificates as after examination of documents, "it was found that names of the companies were not in consonance with the proposed alteration of object clause of companies."
"In these certificates, the writing in hand at point B 'subject to change of name' was added by me and the same is in my hand," he said.
He said a dealing assistant, who examined the documents, had proposed that the change of objects may be allowed subject to the change of name of the company.
During cross examination, Gupta denied that he had deliberately inserted the handwritten portion to create controversy.
"It is wrong to suggest that the handwritten insertion has been deliberately done by me in order to create unnecessary controversy as nothing of this sort is contained in the website or in the certified copies," he said.
Gupta said he did not remember if Parsvnath Developers Limited had altered its object clause on December 8, 2007.