CLICK here for SC verdict on SASIKALA and others


The four  apparent things  Kumaarasaamy BIASED  on his verdict  We put the revised explanation  and comments on this review as follows

Let us discuss and find out one by one
  Logic error  No.1:-  As per HC Judge saying that in his verdict “NOT ACCEPTING VALUE THAT  PAID OVER AND ABOVE  THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF ASSETS”.....

Before  we go to  deep analysis  let us  go thro on  
                                             scenereo No1

On Page 883 and 884 the Judge says he is I decline to take the value of the footwear., I decline to take the value of the apparels, which is 2,00,902.45 and 92,44,290.00 respectively and on page 891 he says I value the cost paid over and above the sale consideration as “Nil”, so the total value put by the prosecution which is 20,07,80,246.00 (page 580) for the same the value judge arrives is 6,24,09,120 on page 847, so the difference is 13,83,71,126.00.
 So technically the three amounts 2,00,902.45 and 92,44,290.00 and 13,83,71,126.00= 14,78,16,318.45 has to be removed from the Assets as per DV & AC which is 66,44,73,573. which will bring the assets further down to 22,80,86,147.55 (37,59, 02, 466-14,78,16,318.45=22,80,86,147.55)
Now for the income side, the judge says 34,76, 65, 654 (page 913 ). Let us assume the Judge made arithmetic error on page 852 and added the 13,50,00,000 extra to income, let us reduce this from his calculation, the income could be 34,76, 65, 654-13,50,00,000=21,26,65,654.
The total asset is 22,80,86,147.55
Total Income is 21,26,65,654.00
So the disproportionate asset is total asset-income which is 22,80,86,147.55-21,26.65,654= 1,54,20,493.55
Disproportionate asset in percent is disproportionate asset x100/income which is 1,54,20,493.55×100/21,26,65,654 =7.25%

                                    SCENERIO No:2

There is another possible scenario:

On the loan side is on page 552 in the table he entered only the Bank loans as per PW.182. In the page 551 he notes as PW.160 – R.Bhavani, Deputy Manager, Indian Bank. there is bank loan of 1.5 cores, and per PW.176 – N. Balakrishnan, Deputy Chief Officer, Indian Bank there is bank loan of 1.5 cores, but this is not there in the table on page 552. If this could as well included as they are loan from nationalized bank the total income will increase by another Rs.4,25,00,000 to Rs.25,01,65,654.00

The total asset is Rs.22,80,86,147.55
Total Income is Rs.25,01,65,654.00

and in this scenerio No;2 it seems that there is no question of disproportionate asset as the income is more than the asset.

          COMMENTS ON above said LOGIC ERROR  No.1 and how can SC rectify this.?
For Scenario No1
The above seen two scenarios arises due to the LOGIC ERROR No.1
Why this is logic error and how it would have been omitted?
Any assets which are bound to be included  into evaluate the correct PRICE valuation in this commercial world, the  usual method is to take the GUIDE LINE VALUES of concerned Regn Office jurisdiction where the property situated. That is usual practice followed in all over India.But , the approximation of the value of assets fully based on this GV value of registrar office plus additional prevailing market value or the surplus value paid over and above the sale consideration.Here the judge is taking the very old assessment value of the GV of registrar office concerned. Every one definitely accept that  it will be very Bottom to earth price and it will not be correct price.or atleast the judge may take the value of the adjacent property holder's [neighbour property of Jaya and Sasi] periodical valuation during the year 1991-96. but this jusdge is not even accepting the property holder's UPSET PRICE OF LAND during the  check in period. Or there is another option put forth on this Judge : Bank appraisal value. If the judge would have asked the real value of land and building value  from the bank's LOAN appraisal officer then that officer would have told the real valuation. That bank officer would tell that real valuation of the concerned properties .Of course it would  not be the asset's  FULLY FUTURE MARKET VALUE which may be higher or deviated from real value and it will be also a biased value. But, this judge had not taken any genuine or real steps to do this evaluation instead he evaluated on his own value which  was  very favorable for the accused parties.
 But fortunately the Judge had omitted this error in the final table of verdict [Page 913]whether he had forgotten or his mind was going in right direction .God only knows it.

  So, the errors in SCENERIO1 and 2 [ above said ] shall be rectified by SC during appeal as definitely the value asset be  be neither Rs 6.24 Cr [which is Kumaarasaamy's value  nor Rs 66 Cr[ as per CVAC value].   Instead it will be rectified to an OPTIMUM  acceptable value of around Rs.35-40Cr or precisely Rs.37.59 Cr.  which will be MEAN Average value accepted by all sides.All this things happen only when APPEAL in SC starts.
Hence based on above rectification there is SCENERIO No.3 [after entire errors rectified by SC]for final calculation  which will be as illustrated below :-
                                 SCENERIO No3

                         Even if added the omitted loan amounts as mentioned in Scenerio 2 and put all the rectified values as per corrected format then the  
original value of the TOTAL INCOME is 
Rs.25,01,65,654.00 and if we calculate the percentile Disproportionate assets as per his formula then it comes as 37,59, 02, 466-25,01,65,654 /25,01,65,654 X 100%   = 50.26%

If we mere calculate this percentile by  just correcting the error in the page 852 and put all the values in above formula it comes as  around 77.0%


No comments :

Post a Comment