Jagan, Sharmila continue to trade charges over property dispute
A statement from Jagan’s office said he was forced to move the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) alleging that Sharmila and his mother YS Vijayamma, who acted as conduit for his sister, had illegally and deceitfully transferred shares of Saraswati Power and Industries Private Limited in their names.
Hyderabad The property disputes between YSR Congress party president Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy and his sister Y S Sharmila continued to heat up the political atmosphere in Andhra Pradesh with both the sides trading charges on Thursday.
A statement from Jagan’s office said he was forced to move the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) alleging that Sharmila and his mother YS Vijayamma, who acted as conduit for his sister, had illegally and deceitfully transferred shares of Saraswati Power and Industries Private Limited in their names.
Jagan claimed that he had given due share in his self-acquired properties to Sharmila out of love and affection towards his sister, apart from an equal share in the properties inherited from their father YSR, including ancestral properties.
Besides, he claimed that he had also given ₹200 crore to Sharmila, directly and through Vijayamma over the last decade. “This too was given by me out of my sheer love and affection for you,” he said.
In order to prove his commitment to give a share to Sharmila in his company, Jagan said he had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to transfer a portion of his self-acquired assets, including shares in Saraswati Power Company, to her.
“In furtherance to MoU, he has executed a gift deed in the name of YS Vijayamma transferring the shares of Saraswati Power to her with the same rider of effecting the transfer only after resolution of pending cases in the court,” the statement from Jagan’s office said.
However, since these assets were under attachment by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due to ongoing legal cases, the MoU explicitly stated that the transfer would only happen once the legal issues were resolved.
Jagan claimed that even legal experts suggested that the transfer cannot be affected prior to the resolution of the court cases. “This opinion was explicitly shared with Sharmila and she was well aware of this position. Any such act could also pose the threat of cancellation of bail of Jagan, leave alone other legal complications,” the statement said.
“Yet, Sharmila, despite being aware that the assets cannot be transferred because of court restrictions and could lead to his brother’s bail cancellation as well, got the shares transferred in the name of Vijayamma, even without the signature on the share transfer application and production of original certificates,” the statement added.
Meanwhile, a separate statement from Sharmila’s office brushed aside the contention of Jagan that the transfer of shares would lead to the cancellation of his bail. “In short, Jagan has proved that he will go to any extent, even if it is to drag his mother to court, in order to protect himself,” the statement, quoting her, said.
Sharmila pointed out that the ED had not attached the shares of Saraswathi Power and Industries, but only attached the company’s land worth ₹32 crore. “Shares of the company were never attached and could be transferred at any point of time,” she said.
She said the ED would never stop transfer of shares of any company, even while attaching its properties. “There are many companies even in the stock markets that have their company lands or assets attached by the ED, and yet are freely traded and shares transferred,” she said.
Sharmila pointed out that Jagan’s bail did not get cancelled even when he mentioned in the MoU that all the shares transferred to her could be transacted. In 2021, Jagan allowed Vijayamma to buy the shares of Saraswati Power held by Classic Realty and Sandur Power for ₹42 crore, despite the ED attachment of the company’s land.
“Even when he signed a gift deed transferring his and his wife Bharati’s shares to Vijayamma, his bail did not get cancelled. So, there is no connection between transfer of shares and his bail cancellation,” she argued.