Bar&Bench News Network
After doing time for 13 months at a Hyderabad jail, the Supreme Court has finally granted a bail to Srinivas Talluri. The Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan granted bail to the auditor on a personal bond of Rs. 20 Lakh ($415,000) in addition to two sureties totaling Rs. 40 lakh ($830,000). PriceWaterhouse auditor Talluri Srinivas was arrested on January 9 last year for his alleged role in assisting Raju Brothers in the Satyam scam to show fictitious and fraudulent profits of Rs. 7,136 crore ($1.49 billion).
The matter was listed as the first matter yesterday and was argued by Senior Counsels, Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, who have been holding fort for PwC fort in the entire Satyam dispute and are briefed by Ruby Singh Ahuja, Manu Aggarwal and Jatin Mongia of Karanjawala & Co. The same team appeared before the High Court in a related dispute when the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India issued a show cause notice on PwC.
One of the arguments put forth by Talluri’s lawyers was that he audited Satyam’s books only from 2007 and the fraud was being perpetrated since 2000, which is much before 2007. Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval, appearing for the CBI, said the reports received from abroad showed sufficient evidence against Talluri.
However, questions as to how PwC allow an accounting error of such magnitude, or whether they played a more inclusive role remain. These questions remain, so much so that aspersions have been cast on their competence.
While PwC has engaged a bunch of high profile counsels, the prime accused, the Raju Brothers have engaged a variety of counsels subject to the jurisdiction of the case. With the auditors getting bail, we must wait and watch whether the Raju brothers are next in line with their bail petitions.
|
- 1. "Not giving bail could mean punishing them wihtout proving the guilt. Court should confiscate their passports and let them free to fight the matter from outside the jail. I have serious doubts as to their ability to runaway from the country or the court system. People may argue otherwise.". Guest, New York
- 2. "Bail is constitutional right. When all the evidence on the basus of which a charge sheet is to be substantiated, there is no point in putting a person behind bars when the Investigation agency is not likely to file its cgarge sheet in the near future or commit a date for the same. ". Virender Prabhakar, Jalandhar
- 3. "Its not a problem with the country because if Govt will confiscate the one passport then people will make another one so its necessory to push them behind the bar till the final disposal of case.". LKS, Mumbai
- 4. "SARE CRIME KA SANCHALAN POLICE KAR RAHI HAI AUR SARE KALE DHAN KA SANCHALAN CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT KAR RAHE HAIN. HANG THEM!". SANJEEV OBEROI, NEW DELHI
Related Stories
- Satyam: Karanjawala, Mukul Rohatgi, Amit Sibal get a breather for PwC
- SC cancels Ramalinga Raju's bail: Mukul Rohatgi and a battery of counsels represent Raju and his brother
- Khaitan & Jayakar respite for Ramalinga Raju; J. Sagar and Karanjawala for PwC auditors
- Ashwin Sapra joins Luthra's IP and Pharma practice
- Subhiksha... another Satyam in the making?
- Karanjawala represents Jaswant Singh in the Supreme Court
- AMSS replace Luthra on ING Vysya QIP
Other News
- End of Venture Capital Fund Regulations; SEBI notifies Alternate Investment Fund Regulations
- SILF supports Nariman for President of India; Says no one knows the working of the Constitution better
- Re-Upped Round up May 22
- Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










