ID :
199532
Sat, 08/06/2011 - 22:25
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://www.oananews.org//node/199532
The shortlink copeid
Unitech MD questions CBI for sparing other telecos in 2G case
New Delhi, Aug 6 (PTI) Unitech Wireless MD Sanjay Chandra
on Saturday questioned CBI in a court here for sparing in the
charge sheets other telecom companies which were ready with
the demand drafts much before the LoIs were distributed for 2G
spectrum licence.
Chandra, who has been in Tihar Jail in connection with
the scam, told the court that not only his company but others
like Tata Teleservices, Spice Communications and Loop Telecom
were ready with the demand drafts in advance to comply with
the conditions of LoIs (Letters of Intent).
"There are allegations that because Unitech (and Swan)
kept the demand drafts for compliance of LoIs ready months
before January 10, 2008, it goes on to show that we had prior
inside information. But almost all applicants had their demand
drafts ready much in advance," Chandra's counsel and senior
advocate R S Cheema told Special CBI Judge O P Saini.
The counsel justified the issuance of demand draft in
advance saying every condition, including the entry fee for
licence, was known and there was no foul play involved in
the entire episode.
"The UASL guidelines specify that within 30 days of
making the application, LoIs will be issued. The figure
payable as entry fee was already known and since nothing was
left to guesswork, we got the DDs prepared. Had there been any
inside information, we would not have blocked our money losing
out interest on it," he said.
He also pointed out the statements of officials of Tata
Teleservices, Spice and Loop as having told CBI that they also
had got the drafts ready in advance.
He said one official of Spice telecom had told CBI that
the government may decide the priority on the basis of
compliance of LoIs and so the company got the demand drafts
prepared on January 9, 2007.
"The needle of suspicion should rather be on people who
got it (DD) ready just a day before the distribution of LoIs.
Chandra was not even at the Sanchar Bhawan on the date of LoI
distribution," he said.
Chandra, who denied having manipulated the
first-come-first-served policy, rebutted the allegation of
conspiracy with former Telecom Minister A Raja and his former
personal secretarty R K Chandolia to tweak the cut-off date to
September 25 from October 1, 2007.
"Unitech Wirelss applied for spectrum on September 24,
2007. Had there been any conspiracy to benefit itself, the
date would have been brought to September 24 and not September
25, 2007 as on the last day also many companies had put in
their application," Cheema said.
He also raised fingers at another telecom company Sistema
Shyam saying it was one of the biggest beneficiary of the 2G
spectrum allocation despite having applied after Unitech.
"It applied on the very cut-off date of September 25,
2007 and it is the company that got licences for all the 21
circles it applied for. Sistema Shyam is the most successful
bidder, so why is it being kept out? If you have to go on the
basis of some kind of suspicion, then it seems to be the
biggest beneficiary," he argued.
CBI has alleged Chandolia was manning Unitech's
application and had ordered that after receiving its
application, no more entries would be accepted.
On the allegation concerning the ineligibility of Unitech
Wireless on the date of application to apply for telecom
licences since 'telecom' was not an object in the Memorandum
of Association (MoA) of the company, Chandra said there was no
requirement to amend the MoA in the first place.
"The UASL guidelies of 2005 do not mandate telecom to be
in the object clause of the MoA. Also, telecom activity to be
in the MoA or the Articles of Association was a prerequisite
for the licence agreement and not the date of application. All
that was required was that I acknowledge my agreement to do so
as and when the need arises. A mere intention on the part of
the company at the time of making the application would
have sufficied.
"In any case, the MoA of Unitech Wirelss was duly amended
and telecom activity was mentioned therein September 24, 2007,
when the company applied for a licence. A shareholders'
resolution was also passed for amending the object clause and
due application was made to the Registrar of Companies," he
said.
Chandra said he has to be treated differently from other
co-accused in the case as there was no allegation against him
of paying any illegal gratification or being part of the money
trail.
"I'll suffer great prejudice by being tried with other
accused as there is no allegation against me of any
gratification or being part of money trail," Chandra said,
adding "his case was that of a misjoinder as he is not found
to be inter-linked to the other co-accused in the charge
sheet."
Chandra's counsel also said Unitech Wireless had not
caused any loss to the state exchequer by conspiring for
non-revision of entry fee and non-auction of licences.
"The government of India has itself taken a stand in an
affidavit filed before the court in CPIL vs UoI that the
present policy for grant of licence is transparent and based
on objectives of national telecom policy of 1999 and the tenth
five-year plan.
"The enrty fee was decided by the government to be kept
at the rate of 2001 on basis of TRAI recommendations for
growth of affordable teledensity and to see the economy grows
by not burdening the industry with a high one-time entry fee,"
he said.
He also said the Centre itself had said that it was a
normal practice in the corporate world to bring in investors
for rolling out services to justify the infusion of equity by
Norwegian firm Telenor.
"The company had received approval from the Cabinet
Committee on Economic Affairs and the FIPB for issuance of
shares upto 74 per cent to Telenor.
"Investment of Rs 6135 crores from Telenor came in six
tranches for issue of new shares equivalent to 67. 25 per cent
with the first amount of Rs 1250 crore on March 20, 2009,
second and third investment of Rs 1370 crore and Rs 1409 crore
respectively. By the time the last investment was made,
Unitech had hired 2348 employees and the FDI from Telenor was
used to meet roll-out obligations of the company and
infrastructure and business services."
Chandra's counsel also said "all telecom companies have
FDI and some have even sold equity after obtaining licences
and earned profits.
Tata sold 27.31 per cent shares to Docomo for over Rs
12,000 crores, Datacom sold shares to Videocon, Sistema Shyam
sold it to Sistema."
"Bringing in FDI is something very normal and should have
been welcomed," he said.
Arguments on behalf of Chandra were concluded today and
arguments on behalf of Unitech Wirelss will be heard on
Monday.
on Saturday questioned CBI in a court here for sparing in the
charge sheets other telecom companies which were ready with
the demand drafts much before the LoIs were distributed for 2G
spectrum licence.
Chandra, who has been in Tihar Jail in connection with
the scam, told the court that not only his company but others
like Tata Teleservices, Spice Communications and Loop Telecom
were ready with the demand drafts in advance to comply with
the conditions of LoIs (Letters of Intent).
"There are allegations that because Unitech (and Swan)
kept the demand drafts for compliance of LoIs ready months
before January 10, 2008, it goes on to show that we had prior
inside information. But almost all applicants had their demand
drafts ready much in advance," Chandra's counsel and senior
advocate R S Cheema told Special CBI Judge O P Saini.
The counsel justified the issuance of demand draft in
advance saying every condition, including the entry fee for
licence, was known and there was no foul play involved in
the entire episode.
"The UASL guidelines specify that within 30 days of
making the application, LoIs will be issued. The figure
payable as entry fee was already known and since nothing was
left to guesswork, we got the DDs prepared. Had there been any
inside information, we would not have blocked our money losing
out interest on it," he said.
He also pointed out the statements of officials of Tata
Teleservices, Spice and Loop as having told CBI that they also
had got the drafts ready in advance.
He said one official of Spice telecom had told CBI that
the government may decide the priority on the basis of
compliance of LoIs and so the company got the demand drafts
prepared on January 9, 2007.
"The needle of suspicion should rather be on people who
got it (DD) ready just a day before the distribution of LoIs.
Chandra was not even at the Sanchar Bhawan on the date of LoI
distribution," he said.
Chandra, who denied having manipulated the
first-come-first-served policy, rebutted the allegation of
conspiracy with former Telecom Minister A Raja and his former
personal secretarty R K Chandolia to tweak the cut-off date to
September 25 from October 1, 2007.
"Unitech Wirelss applied for spectrum on September 24,
2007. Had there been any conspiracy to benefit itself, the
date would have been brought to September 24 and not September
25, 2007 as on the last day also many companies had put in
their application," Cheema said.
He also raised fingers at another telecom company Sistema
Shyam saying it was one of the biggest beneficiary of the 2G
spectrum allocation despite having applied after Unitech.
"It applied on the very cut-off date of September 25,
2007 and it is the company that got licences for all the 21
circles it applied for. Sistema Shyam is the most successful
bidder, so why is it being kept out? If you have to go on the
basis of some kind of suspicion, then it seems to be the
biggest beneficiary," he argued.
CBI has alleged Chandolia was manning Unitech's
application and had ordered that after receiving its
application, no more entries would be accepted.
On the allegation concerning the ineligibility of Unitech
Wireless on the date of application to apply for telecom
licences since 'telecom' was not an object in the Memorandum
of Association (MoA) of the company, Chandra said there was no
requirement to amend the MoA in the first place.
"The UASL guidelies of 2005 do not mandate telecom to be
in the object clause of the MoA. Also, telecom activity to be
in the MoA or the Articles of Association was a prerequisite
for the licence agreement and not the date of application. All
that was required was that I acknowledge my agreement to do so
as and when the need arises. A mere intention on the part of
the company at the time of making the application would
have sufficied.
"In any case, the MoA of Unitech Wirelss was duly amended
and telecom activity was mentioned therein September 24, 2007,
when the company applied for a licence. A shareholders'
resolution was also passed for amending the object clause and
due application was made to the Registrar of Companies," he
said.
Chandra said he has to be treated differently from other
co-accused in the case as there was no allegation against him
of paying any illegal gratification or being part of the money
trail.
"I'll suffer great prejudice by being tried with other
accused as there is no allegation against me of any
gratification or being part of money trail," Chandra said,
adding "his case was that of a misjoinder as he is not found
to be inter-linked to the other co-accused in the charge
sheet."
Chandra's counsel also said Unitech Wireless had not
caused any loss to the state exchequer by conspiring for
non-revision of entry fee and non-auction of licences.
"The government of India has itself taken a stand in an
affidavit filed before the court in CPIL vs UoI that the
present policy for grant of licence is transparent and based
on objectives of national telecom policy of 1999 and the tenth
five-year plan.
"The enrty fee was decided by the government to be kept
at the rate of 2001 on basis of TRAI recommendations for
growth of affordable teledensity and to see the economy grows
by not burdening the industry with a high one-time entry fee,"
he said.
He also said the Centre itself had said that it was a
normal practice in the corporate world to bring in investors
for rolling out services to justify the infusion of equity by
Norwegian firm Telenor.
"The company had received approval from the Cabinet
Committee on Economic Affairs and the FIPB for issuance of
shares upto 74 per cent to Telenor.
"Investment of Rs 6135 crores from Telenor came in six
tranches for issue of new shares equivalent to 67. 25 per cent
with the first amount of Rs 1250 crore on March 20, 2009,
second and third investment of Rs 1370 crore and Rs 1409 crore
respectively. By the time the last investment was made,
Unitech had hired 2348 employees and the FDI from Telenor was
used to meet roll-out obligations of the company and
infrastructure and business services."
Chandra's counsel also said "all telecom companies have
FDI and some have even sold equity after obtaining licences
and earned profits.
Tata sold 27.31 per cent shares to Docomo for over Rs
12,000 crores, Datacom sold shares to Videocon, Sistema Shyam
sold it to Sistema."
"Bringing in FDI is something very normal and should have
been welcomed," he said.
Arguments on behalf of Chandra were concluded today and
arguments on behalf of Unitech Wirelss will be heard on
Monday.
