The Madras High Court permitted a convict, undergoing 20 years of imprisonment for an economic offence, to argue a case before it through video conference from the Puzhal central prison in Chennai by wearing regular civilian dress and not the clothing meant for convicted prisoners.
“The appellant, who is appearing party-in-person, will be permitted to appear through video conference on April 3, 2024 in regular shirt and full pants,” a Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel ordered following a complaint made by him.
The convict, R. Subramanian, founder of the once most popular retail chain Subhiksha, complained to the court that the prison authorities were not allowing him to wear civil dress during virtual court hearings since he continues to remain within the prison premises.
Though he also made a request to permit him to come in person to the court to argue his case fearing that he may not be able to put forth his submissions effectively through video call, the Bench turned down such a request and said, he could be allowed to appear only virtually.
The convict had filed two original side appeals challenging the orders passed by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy on April 21, 2023, for winding up Viswapriya India Limited (VIL) and initiating liquidation proceedings after rejecting a request to transfer all its properties to a trust to be created for the benefit of debenture holders.
The single judge had dismissed a company application filed in 2022 for the creation of such a trust, by modifying a 2014 scheme, with an observation that the creation of such a trust and transferring properties mired under litigation to it would only benefit the directors of the company and not the debenture holders.
Justice Ramasamy said, Justice R. Sudhakar (since retired) had approved the 2014 scheme for settling the dues to debenture holders only after it was represented that VIL had assets to the tune of ₹171.64 crore. Despite the scheme framed under the Companies Act, dues to debenture holders had not been settled till now.
Though Mr. Subramanian cited the criminal case filed against him and his companies by the Economic Offences Wing under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 as the reason for the delay, the judge refused to accept the explanation.
“The total amount outstanding to the debenture holders is about ₹125 crore along with interest. If really VIL and its sponsors had any intention to implement the scheme, they could have very well implemented the same with the realisation of the current assets alone,” the judge wrote.
After passing the winding-up order on the company petition filed in 2014, he directed the Official Liquidator in the High Court to take charge of VIL and initiate steps for settling the dues to the debenture holders.
