Business

Court gives police three weeks to conclude Paytm ownership probe – Times of India

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court docket on Monday has given police three weeks to conclude an investigation into claims from a former Paytm director who mentioned he co-founded the digital fee platform however didn’t obtain shares owed.
Ashok Kumar Saxena, 71, in authorized paperwork mentioned he invested $27,500 20 years in the past in Paytm mum or dad One97 Communications however was by no means allotted any inventory, Reuters reported this month.
Paytm has mentioned the declare quantities to harassment and cited it below “felony proceedings” within the prospectus for its proposed $2.2 billion preliminary public providing (IPO).
Saxena, a director from 2000 to 2004, has written to the market regulator urging it to cease Paytm from continuing with the IPO.
Company governance specialists mentioned the tussle might spark regulatory inquiries and complicate the approval of an IPO that would worth Paytm, backed by Chinese language e-commerce chief Alibaba Group Holding Ltd, at as much as $25 billion.
On Monday, a Delhi district court docket choose requested the ultimate report of the police’s investigation inside three weeks.
“I’m directing them to conclude the inquiry as quickly as attainable,” mentioned Metropolitan Justice of the Peace Animesh Kumar.
The police has submitted a standing report back to the court docket however is but to conclude the investigation, senior lawyer Anupam Lal Das, representing Saxena, advised Reuters after the listening to.
A Delhi police official declined to remark. Paytm didn’t reply to a request for remark.
The guts of the dispute is a doc seen by Reuters, dated 2001 and signed by Saxena and present Paytm chief govt Vijay Shekhar Sharma, stating Saxena was to personal 55% of One97 Communications with Sharma proudly owning the rest.
Paytm, in a response to a police discover and which was seen by Reuters, denied Saxena was a co-founder and mentioned the doc in query was “merely a letter of intent” which “didn’t materialise into any definitive settlement.
Sharma didn’t reply to a request for remark.
The case will subsequent be heard on September 13.



Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button