Pvt company comes forward to buy AgriGold properties

Hyderabad: The scam-tainted AgriGold company brought a buyer, MMR Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd, who undertook to buy the four properties in Andhra Pradesh at twice the rate they fetched in the auction through e-portal. The High Court at Hyderabad on Monday allowed the buyer to deposit 25 per cent of the Rs 16.51 crore amount by September 11 and directed the Andhra Pradesh CID police to inform the highest bidders for these properties in the e-auction to be present before the court on that day, if they want to increase their offers in light of this development.

The division bench comprising Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice S V Bhatt gave these directions while hearing the PIL petition filed by Telangana AgriGold Customers and Agents Welfare Association seeking a CBI probe into the scam and return of depositors’ monies. The bench had during the previous hearing warned the AgriGold company that if it would not bring a buyer for at least twice the rates fetched, its objections regarding the price would be seen as an attempt to stall the auction.

The AgriGold company had stated in its affidavit that the auctioned properties could fetch at least six times more value than the highest bids received. In this context, MMR Group of companies came forward to buy the four properties, three of which are situated in Krishna district and one in Prakasam district, at twice the rates fetched. The bench recorded that in case the highest bidders do not improve their offers, these properties would be confirmed to the MMR Group, which will have to pay the remaining 75 per cent of the amount by September 30.

Deloitte firm files application
Meanwhile, consulting firm Deloitte has filed an intervention application on behalf of an undisclosed ‘interested party’ which is interested in taking over entire business of AgriGold company as a going concern.

Senior counsel Sri Raghuram appearing for the firm, requested the bench to grant four months time to undertake due diligence exercise and come up with an offer. He also requested the court to provide access to the required documents which are in custody of the CID. He said the identity of the ‘interested party’ is not being revealed at this stage as it may impact the share values of the company and assured that this is a bona fide offer. He said the group would submit to any reasonable conditions the bench may impose in this regard.

The bench commented that there are grey areas in the application. One, the identity of the interested party is not disclosed, two, the final offer is dependent on the outcome of due diligence and three, it will not be possible to know whether the offer made by the interested party is one that exceeds what would have been fetched in e-auction. When the senior counsel expressed willingness to disclose the name of the party to only the bench, it was rejected with the comment “why should the process be shrouded in secrecy.”

The bench said even after two years of filing of the PIL, not a single rupee could be paid back to the depositors. It directed the CID and the petitioners to file their responses to the intervention application by the next date of hearing on September 11. It also directed the AgriGold company and the petitioner to give a list of properties that can be put to e-auction in the next phase.