![\"\"](\"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
R Venkataramanan<\/a>, managing trustee<\/a> of the Tata Trusts<\/a>, was at the centre of some of Cyrus Mistry<\/a>’s key allegations against Ratan Tata<\/a> in the October 25 letter issued by the ousted chairman of Tata Sons. Venkataramanan defended himself and the Tata group<\/a> in his first extended interview on the matter with ET at the Tata Trusts office in Mumbai’s Cuffe Parade. He refuted two key points made in the Mistry letter—that he was instrumental in Tata Capital giving loans to C Sivasankaran and that he dismissed fraud at AirAsia India. Edited excerpts:<\/em>\n
\nOne of the allegations in Cyrus Mistry’s letter is that Tata Capital was pushed into giving loans to C Sivasankaran, which later went bad, on your advice. What is your response to this?<\/strong>
No loan was given to Mr C Sivasankaran in his personal capacity. Siva Group<\/a> (Siva Renewable Energy) was already a client of TCFSL (Tata Capital Financial Services<\/a> Ltd) when the loan was sought. TCFSL had given a loan of Rs 25 crore, which was subsequently paid back in full with interest. Let us go with official records and not some hearsay allegations.
\n
\nTata Capital had given secured term loan facilities to Siva Ventures Ltd and Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. Due process was followed by the company.
\n
\nThe loan recommendation was put forth to the investment credit committee of the board where it was approved on the basis of loan cover and value of the security pledged and independent credit ratings which indicated that the facility was investment grade. Post classification as NPA (non-performing asset), collateral was seized with a put option which expires in June 2017. The settlement structure was also approved by the board of the company and documents were executed under the guidance of the group general counsel. When Sivasankaran filed for bankruptcy in the Seychelles, TCFSL filed to be removed from the list of creditors and won.
\n
\nTata Capital is in fact mandated to promote the Tata group ecosystem and this figures as a KRA (key result area) in their appraisals. They do consider Tata group referrals on priority. And further, this is not unique to Tata group, they consider promoter referrals favourably.
\n
\nApproximately 3x collateral was sought to process the loan—the fall in value of the collateral was because of a fall in stock value of Tata Teleservices, a company that was led by Mr Mistry in the period. The collateral and a put option were obtained in the settlement with Mr Sivasankaran’s personal guarantee. Till June 2017, TCFSL has the right to sell back the Tata Tele shares to Siva and he has to make good the difference between the value of the shares and the amount due (Rs 240 crore) so the company does not lose. This is my understanding from the company’s statement.
\n
\nMistry has said he was faced with fait accompli on airline JVs...<\/strong>
\nThese are strategic investments to participate in a growth business – the airline sector. They were presented and deliberated upon by the board of Tata Sons like any other investment.
\n
\nThere was no coercion. The decision to invest in Air Asia was taken when Mr Tata was still the chairman. There is no question of fait accompli. There’s a letter dated December 10, 2012, which confirms the quantum of investment of Tata Sons in the JV to Air Asia to substantiate this.
\n
\nYou were said to have dismissed fraudulent transactions of Rs 22 crore involving non-existent parties in India and Singapore at AirAsia as “non-material.”<\/strong>
\nI’m not on the board of AirAsia India in my capacity as... trustee. The sequence of events is: auditors made a qualification on some unexplained expenses, a forensic investigation was commissioned to separate out irregularities from suspected fraud or illegalities and this report was submitted on September 16 and presented to the audit committee on September 26. I did not attend the audit committee meeting.
\n
\nThe person who supposedly dissented against an attempt to discourage investigation was in attendance – I don’t know what transpired. I attended the board meeting on the same afternoon where this person was not present.
\n
\nDuring course of discussions on finalisation of the accounts for the financial year, I asked a question on what is the quantum\/materiality of transactions being talked about, which is a sane question to ask. Not just me, several members raised questions and healthy discussions were held on the manner in which the notes to accounts were to be finalised. After deliberations, the chairman and the directors decided to take the matter to a logical conclusion unanimously. The board took whatever action they deemed fit – they authorised the CFO to examine all the documents. It was unanimously passed.
\n
\nSo I am equally surprised why my name has been singled out. I am there on the board of AirAsia India not as the executive director, I am there as non-executive director representing Tata Sons. I am there on the board of AirAsia India from its inception, representing Tata Sons. We (the board) meet once in a quarter. I am, therefore, surprised if not shocked how anyone can link up and claim that trusts are running AirAsia India... I was a director even before I became a trustee.
\n
\nAs mentioned earlier, I did not remotely suggest any compromise on action to be taken against suspects. Given the suspected criminality, the board decided to take the services of a retired veteran police official. This took a while to get a resolution and convince this person to take on investigation. The board then had to resolve to authorise Ankur Khanna (AirAsia India CFO) to take up the matter of filing the FIR on behalf of the company. An FIR has been filed in Bengaluru on November 9. The letter from Cyrus Mistry dated October 25 had no bearing on the due process followed by the company till date.
\n
\nThe decision was taken (to investigate further) on September 26 by the AirAsia board. My two positions are being spoken about – as director and as shareholder. First, I’m a non-executive director and I obviously cannot moot an action on my own.
\n
\nFurther, it is on record that directors in attendance at the board meeting unanimously decided to take action and till date there has been no change in the steps we proposed to take.
\n
\nAs a shareholder, I own 1.5%. My question would be — why did the majority shareholder Tata Sons under Cyrus Mistry, while being fully aware of the matter as his October 25 letter indicates, not take any action? The first action taken by Mr Mistry on this matter is leaking this allegation to the media and possibly compromising the investigation by putting this in the public domain.
\n
\nHow did you come to own a 1.5% stake in Air Asia India?<\/strong>
\nYou must realise that while one comes from a modest background, I lived in the Middle East for a few years. I took a one-third cut in salary to work here just for the joy of working for Mr Tata and the Tata Group. I have adequate financial means on my own to contribute. I’ve been working for 20 years.
\n
\nObviously, I have some savings. My wife had been working for 17 years. When shares were offered, it was at par. The reason for taking this was not because we wanted a stake. Tata Sons did not want to go to 51%. Three board members said we should look at taking it up for the continuity etc. That’s why we stepped in. I have a lot of friends and benefactors to give me loans.
\n
\nDo you think people are targeting you?<\/strong>
\nOf course they are. It is the nature of my role. As a managing trustee and someone who reports to Ratan Tata. Maybe no one dares attack Mr Tata. So people like me are collateral damage.
\n
\nYou are said to be extremely close to Ratan Tata...<\/strong>
\nNot many know Mr Tata. People who know Mr Tata will tell you a few facts about him. There are two people who are very close to him. They are Tito and Tango, his German shepherds! Nobody else can come remotely close. Then the other thing, people who know him will tell you is that you are as good as your last task for Mr Tata. Your performance is what matters and you are always on the edge. The opportunity to make a mistake is close to zero given the nature of the challenges involved.
\n
\nRecent reports suggest the income tax department is investigating why the Tata Trusts shouldn’t be taxed as they re-invest capital gains in what a government audit report suggested were “prohibitive mode” of investments...<\/strong>
\nThere is no “investigation.” Tax proceedings relating to capital gains relate to prior years and the income tax appellate tribunal has already ruled in favour of the Trusts, stating that relevant exemptions claimed by the Trusts were in conformity with the law. Further, jurisdictional courts have affirmed our legal position and even the higher courts have upheld the Trusts’ stand in other similar issues.
\n
\nThe appeals relating to the Trusts are before the high court as of now, so without getting into specifics of those, I'll say that we are certain of the legality of the exemptions we have claimed.
\n
\nAmendments in the Tata Sons articles of association are said to have created alternative power centres, among these being you as managing trustee of the Tata Trusts.<\/strong>
\nAmendment to the articles of association was necessitated by the fact that for the first time in the history of the group, the chairman of the Tata Sons board and the chairman of the Tata Trusts would be different persons. A new, fair system that would outlive both the individuals was designed and approved by all stakeholders—Tata Trusts, Tata Sons and its shareholders including SPCL (Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd, which is owned by the Mistry family and owns an 18.4% stake in Tata Sons). This was presented after extensive deliberations with justice BN Srikrishna and the then advocate general of Maharashtra Darius Khambatta. It had the full knowledge, participation and consent of Mr Mistry.
\n
\nThe tenets that were agreed upon, namely submission of a one-year operating plan and a five-year strategic plan with measurable goals and financial targets, have never been complied with, leaving the shareholders, especially the Trusts, in the dark.
\n
\nWhat has been tabled has always been glossy language such as a 10-year “vision” and “to touch a quarter of the world’s population,” which is not meaningful when the Trusts need to plan their operations. What is called “inappropriate interpretation” is actually noncompliance to agreed terms. There has been a sustained correspondence from Mr Tata to the former chairman reiterating the fundamental need for the amendments and agreement between the parties for including the same.
\n
\nI personally was not involved at all – my executive responsibility is to the Tata Trusts, I had nothing to do with Tata Sons.
\n
\nMost of the Trusts’ philanthropy is said to be directed overseas and at foreign universities and hospitals. The Harvard grant is said to be linked to Nitin Nohria.<\/strong>
\nThis is absolutely wrong. Harvard was done in 2008-09, when Nitin Nohria was not even the dean. The contribution to Harvard was not just by Tata Trusts, but by Tata companies too. The contribution was spread over six years... Our total contributions are about $125 million a year. Bulk of it is in India.\n\n<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":55933561,"title":"8 smartphone painting apps to bring out the artist in you","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/8-smartphone-painting-apps-to-bring-out-the-artist-in-you\/55933561","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[],"msid":55933655,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"Look at official records, not hearsay allegations: R Venkataramanan, Managing Trustee, Tata Trusts","synopsis":"Venkataramanan has refuted Cyrus Mistry\u2019s allegations on his \u2018role\u2019 in loans given to Sivasankaran companies and AirAsia India irregularities.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/look-at-official-records-not-hearsay-allegations-r-venkataramanan-managing-trustee-tata-trusts","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[{"author_name":"Satish John","author_link":"\/author\/479222248\/satish-john","author_image":"https:\/\/etimg.etb2bimg.com\/authorthumb\/479222248.cms?width=100&height=100&hostid=268","author_additional":{"thumbsize":false,"msid":479222248,"author_name":"Satish John","author_seo_name":"satish-john","designation":"Editor","agency":false}}],"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"ET Bureau","artdate":"2016-12-12 08:59:54","lastupd":"2016-12-12 09:02:40","breadcrumbTags":["industry","ratan tata","Tata Group","Siva Group","Financial Services","managing trustee","Cyrus Mistry","Tata Trusts","R VENKATARAMANAN","Tata Group feud"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/look-at-official-records-not-hearsay-allegations-r-venkataramanan-managing-trustee-tata-trusts"}}" data-authors="[" satish john"]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2016-12-12" data-index="article_1">
看看官方记录,而不是道听途说指控:R Venkataramanan管理受托人,塔塔信托
Venkataramanan驳倒了塞勒斯Mistry的指控在他的“作用”的贷款给Sivasankaran亚洲航空公司和印度违规行为。
R Venkataramanan,管理受托人的塔塔信托的核心部分塞勒斯Mistry关键的指控拉丹·塔塔在10月25日发布的信被塔塔集团董事长的儿子。Venkataramanan和自卫塔塔集团在他的第一个扩展等采访了在孟买的塔塔信托办公室Cuffe游行。他驳斥了两个关键点Mistry的信,他是在首都塔塔给C Sivasankaran和贷款欺诈而被印度在亚洲航空。编辑摘录:
的指控之一居鲁士Mistry的信是塔塔资本被迫给C Sivasankaran贷款,后来不好,在你的建议。你的反应是什么?
没有贷款给C Sivasankaran先生在他的个人能力。湿婆集团湿婆(可再生能源)已经客户TCFSL(塔塔资本金融服务有限公司)寻求贷款时。TCFSL送给25卢比的贷款,这是后来全额偿还。让我们一起去官方记录,而不是一些道听途说的指控。
塔塔资本已获得定期贷款设施湿婆投资有限公司和湿婆产业控股有限公司正当程序由公司之后。
贷款建议提出投资信贷委员会的董事会批准贷款的基础上覆盖的安全承诺和价值和独立的信用评级表明设施投资级。职位分类为NPA(不良资产),抵押品被认沽期权,将在2017年6月到期。解决结构也是公司的董事会批准,文件是该集团总法律顾问的指导下执行。在塞舌尔Sivasankaran申请破产时,TCFSL申请从列表中被删除的债权人和赢了。
塔塔资本实际上是塔塔集团授权促进生态系统和这个数字作为热泪盈眶(关键结果领域)的评估。他们认为塔塔集团推荐优先。进一步,这并不是唯一的塔塔集团,他们认为启动子推荐优惠。
大约3 x抵押品是试图处理贷款抵押品价值下降是由于塔塔电信业务的股票价值下降,Mistry先生领导的公司。抵押品和看跌期权获得在解决Sivasankaran先生的个人担保。直到2017年6月,TCFSL有权回塔塔Tele股份卖给湿婆和他有良好的股票的价值之间的差异和由于数量(240卢比),所以公司不输。这是我的理解从公司的声明。
Mistry说他面对既成事实的航空企业……
这些战略投资参与增长业务,航空部门也同样如此。他们提出,经董事会审议Tata Sons像其他投资。
没有强迫。决定投资于亚洲航空拍摄时,塔塔先生仍然是董事长。毫无疑问的既成事实。有一个2012年12月10日的来信,这证实了量子投资企业塔塔桑的亚洲航空来证实这一点。
据说你驳回了22个卢比的欺诈性交易不存在政党参与印度和新加坡在亚航“非物质”。
我不是在黑板上亚航印度作为…受托人。事件的顺序是:审计师资格在一些无法解释的费用,法医调查委托从疑似欺诈或分离出违规违法的情况和这个报告是9月16日提交,提交给审计委员会9月26日。我没有参加审计委员会会议。
的人可能反对企图阻止调查参加,我不知道发生什么。我参加了董事会会议在同一个下午这个人不存在。
在讨论定稿过程中占的财政年度,我问了一个问题的量子/物质是什么事务在谈论,这是一个理智的问题要问。不仅仅是我,几个成员举行了质疑和健康的讨论的方式指出账户被敲定。商议后,董事长和董事会决定采取一个合乎逻辑的结论一致。董事会采取任何行动他们认为适合,他们授权首席财务官来检查所有的文件。一致通过了。
所以我同样惊讶为什么我的名字已经挑出。我在黑板上亚航印度没有执行董事,我作为非执行董事代表塔塔的儿子。我在亚航印度从一开始,董事会代表塔塔的儿子。我们(董事会)满足四分之一。因此,我惊讶如果不是震惊如何任何人都可以联系起来,认为信托运行亚航印度……我是一个导演甚至在我成为了一名受托人。
正如前面提到的,我没有远程显示任何妥协行动对嫌疑人。考虑到犯罪嫌疑人,董事会决定采取一个退休的资深警官的服务。这花费了一段时间分辨率和说服这个人接受调查。董事会必须解决授权Ankur卡纳(亚航印度首席财务官)的申请问题的冷杉代表公司。提出了冷杉在班加罗尔11月9日。塞勒斯的来信Mistry日期为10月25日没有轴承的正当程序之后,该公司至今为止。
决定了(做进一步调查)9月26日的亚航。我的两个职位正在谈论,董事和股东。首先,我是一名非执行董事和我显然不能自己模拟操作。
此外,记录,董事出席董事会会议一致决定采取行动,至今没有改变我们提议采取的步骤。
作为股东,我拥有1.5%。我的问题是,为什么多数股东Tata Sons居鲁士Mistry之下,同时充分意识到这件事是他的10月25日的信表明,没有采取任何行动?采取的第一个行动Mistry先生在这个问题上向媒体泄露这个指控,可能损害调查将在公共领域。
你是怎么来的印度亚洲航空1.5%的股份?
你必须意识到,当一个来自一个温和的背景下,我住在中东几年。我把削减三分之一的工资在这里工作只是为了为塔塔先生工作的喜悦和塔塔集团。我自己有足够的经济能力作出贡献。我已经工作了20年。
很明显,我有一些积蓄。我的妻子工作了17年。当股价,平价。把这个的原因并不是因为我们想要一个股份。塔塔的儿子不想去51%。三个董事会成员说我们应该看看它的连续性等等。这就是为什么我们介入了。我有很多朋友和恩人给我贷款。
你认为人是针对你吗?
当然他们是。这是我的角色的本质。作为受托人管理和报告来Ratan Tata的人。也许没有一个人敢攻击塔塔先生。所以像我这样的人是附带损害。
你是说非常接近Ratan Tata……
没有多少知道塔塔先生。了解塔塔先生的人会告诉你关于他的一些事实。有两个非常接近他的人。他们是铁托和探戈,他的德国牧羊犬!没有其他人可以远程关闭。另一件事,认识他的人会告诉你是你对塔塔先生一样好你最后的任务。你的表现是重要的,你总是在边缘。犯错误的机会接近于零挑战的性质。
最近的报告表明塔塔信托收入税务部门正在调查为什么不应该他们一定资本利得征税的政府审计报告建议“禁止模式”的投资…
没有“调查。“税收诉讼有关资本利得与前几年和所得税上诉法庭已经裁定支持信任,说明相关豁免声称由信托公司是符合法律。此外,管辖权法院肯定了我们的法律地位,甚至高等法院支持信托的站在其他类似的问题。
相关上诉最高法院前的信托是到目前为止,没有进入细节,我会说我们某些合法性的豁免。
章程修正案的Tata Sons据说创建替代权力中心,在这些被你作为塔塔的受托人管理信托。
章程修正案是必然的历史上第一次,Tata Sons董事会主席和塔塔集团的主席信托将不同的人。一个新的、公平的系统比两个人设计和批准所有stakeholders-Tata信托,Tata Sons及其股东包括让(沙普尔吉-帕隆吉公司&有限公司,隶属Mistry家庭和拥有Tata Sons) 18.4%的股权。这是广泛讨论后提出正义BN Srikrishna和马哈拉施特拉邦大流士Khambatta当时提倡一般。它有完整的知识,参与和同意Mistry先生。
商定的原则,即提交一年运营计划和五年战略计划,可衡量的目标和财务目标,从未被遵守,让股东、特别是信托,在黑暗中。
所提出一直是光滑的语言如10年“愿景”和“触摸世界人口的四分之一,“这是毫无意义的,当信托需要计划他们的操作。所谓“不解释”实际上是不遵守约定条款。有持续的通信塔塔先生的前任主席重申修正案的基本需要和当事人之间协议包括相同的。
我个人并没有——我的行政责任是塔塔信托基金,我和Tata Sons无关。
大部分的海外信托慈善事业是导演说,在外国大学和医院。据说哈佛授予Nitin Nohria有关。
这绝对是错误的。哈佛大学在2008 - 09年,当Nitin Nohria甚至没有院长。哈佛大学的贡献不仅仅是由塔塔信托基金,但塔塔公司。的贡献是分布在六年……我们的总贡献约1.25亿美元一年。大部分是在印度。
评论
现在评论 阅读评论(1)所有评论
找到这个评论进攻?
下面选择你的理由并单击submit按钮。这将提醒我们的版主采取行动