The experiences bestowed by Kanchi-Mahaswami — Part 32 : How to say, Mr.Palkhivala, you are wrong
(Original author “S.Gurumurhty”, Translated by Rangarajan)
https://www.thuglak.com/thuglak/main.php?x=curissue/ninaithu_paarkiraen_09_06_2021.php
In ch.23, I did mention about my deep dive into the Indian constitution due to my proximity with “Jambhavan” A.N.Sivaraman. Based on his advice, I had gone through the political constitution, constituent assembly discussions, related bye-law & important Supreme court’s judgement on constitutional matters. It helped me immediately, immensely to create a name in law practices. All the name & fame are because of the blessings of the Kanchi Mahaswami. When I decided to pen my thoughts, immediately, my mind recollected the episodes related to the Saint. Now, we have covered eight chapters.
Having studied the constitutional theories in-depth, I was able to provide a novel solution to a life or death problem in Goenka’s family. It helped to get acceptance into the legal community. Earlier, I had mentioned about the witch-hunting of Indira and her attempts to finish off the Indian Express group and Goenka’s family, all together. Instead of seniors in the legal community, Goenka chose me to troubleshoot his problem. In the next year, from this case, the experience & fame that I had gained, acquaintances with famous lawyers like Palkhivala had helped to set up a launch paid for both my professional & social life.
Case foisted by Indira
In the earlier chapter, I had mentioned about the purchase of IISCO shares by Goenka based on Nehru’s advice (Chapter 13). Though Goenka had a sizeable stake (Rs 30 crores worth of shares, now valued at Rs 1,350 crores), he was prevented by Indira from taking over the management of IISCO. It led to the stagnation of shares in the hands of Govt, since there were no back & forth movement and leading to a potential loss for Goenka. Though four companies had invested to buy the shares but the holding was vested with a single company. If there is a loss then it would be appropriate to distribute the losses among them equally. My Guru Gowrikanthan had devised a brilliant scheme by creating a new holding company called “Express Traders” and made all four companies as part of them.
In 1970, ‘Express Traders’ was started. Suddenly, the share price of IISCO came down and led to a loss of Rs 20 crores in 1972. The four companies deducted the losses from their profit and showed in their final accounting statement. IT department was contesting this and blamed us that we were falsifying the accounts. According to them, the new company was established in 1971 and not 1970. Then, they proceeded to penalize the express group and froze their properties.
Indira sent the case to CBI. They prepared false evidence, prepared the Investigation report, and submitted it to the court, before the elections. I had mentioned about Goenka’s two-pronged strategy — on the one hand, he was waging battle with Indira, and on the other hand, he had nominated six Congressman as directors in his company. In Jul 1976, on behalf of Goenka, Kuldip Nayar had given a request to Pranab Mukherjee to forward their dispute to the settlement commission that would facilitate an amicable settlement. But that move got stopped due to the tiff with V.C.Shukla (Chapter 19).
Indira had asked the settlement commission to reject the request from the Goenka group. Subsequently, Goenka had dismissed the congress representatives from his group. One day, Goenka’s son B.D.Goenka came to me with half a ton of case documents and mentioned to me that his father wanted me to go through the case and propose a way out. It was a herculean task for me.
Palkhivala’s views — wrong?
After coming to power in 1977, the Janata govt was ready to help the Express group to get rid of old cases that were foisted by Indira. Goenka wanted to approach the settlement commission again and sought the opinion of Palkhivala. Nani Palkhivala opined that once the request gets rejected then that path gets closed for us. The same was confirmed by Goenka’s senior advisers too. After reading the relevant documents I concluded that the request was not rejected. It was put “on hold” status due to the objections raised by the IT department. It was neither accepted nor rejected but in a third state. But, how do I make others understand this.
I was working on this problem continuously. While taking bath, an idea came to me that would help to restore the status of our application. It had precedence in one of the explanations related to the Indian constitution.
When I referred to the Indian constitution, I found the relevant word — prorogue, to indicate the state of the parliament. It is an intermediary stage between the Parliament that is ‘live’ and ‘dissolved’. The intermediary state indicates neither the parliament is live/inaction nor it is dead/disbanded. It is in a state of ‘suspended animation, similar to the state of “Trishanku Swarga.
As per law, a parliament that is alive can be assembled or dissolved. But the same thing cannot be said about a prorogued parliament. Only by canceling that state by the President, it can be made alive. Then, I compared this with the status of the application. It is in a state of prorogued. It has been neither accepted nor rejected and continued to be in a state of suspended animation. So, when the IT commission withdraws their objection, the application status would be restored. I gave this recommendation in writing.
But, there was one more hurdle to cross before forwarding this recommendation to the settlement commission. How to veto the opinion given by the great legal luminary Nani Palkhivala, whose opinion was highly rated by the honorable Supreme Court. I was trembling and could not find a way out of this. I need the support of a knowledgeable person to reach out to Goenka. Then I thought of A.N.Sivaraman.
‘Yes, you are correct said ANS’
ANS was in Delhi. I went to him and said, “Sir, I need some time from you and request you to listen to me even if it appears to be a rubbish talk. What I am going to share would decide the life/death problem of the Express group. Because of your motivation, I started studying the constitution in depth. Now, I have concluded and need your help to verify that. His interest was further aroused because of constitutional involvement.
I explained to him about the case from the beginning and rushing through the details. Still, I remember the correction that he had made; Instead of using the word ‘commission’, he told me to use the word ‘commissioner’. Then, I realized my mistake and continued slowly. Finally, he agreed with me that once the objection gets withdrawn then automatically the application status would get restored. Then I explained the opinion of Palkhivala and we agreed that it needs to be rewritten. Who would bell the cat? Again, ANS suggested that let’s reach out to his buddy, Goenka.
Postscript: when I discussed with Ram Jethmalani about the bathroom idea, he was also in agreement. He said further that he would shout to someone to note it down, before he forgets that.
