"The Law Is Merely Taking Its Own Course"

Outlook met a relaxed and cheerful T.R. Prasad, secretary, heavy industry, and chairman of Maruti Udyog Limited, hours before he allegedly told the Assurances Committee that he would push for a quick removal of Bhargava. Excerpts from the inte

Outlook Web Desk

Updated on: 6 February 2022 10:43 am

"The Law Is Merely Taking Its Own Course"

Why is the Government hounding R.C. Bhargava?

We are not hounding him. When Suzuki appointed Bhargava as managing director in 1992, the then secretary, Department of Heavy Industries, Surendra Singh had written to Mr Suzuki on August 28, 1992 informing him that allegations of impropriety had been levelled against Bhargava. The letter said that these allegations were being looked into by the investigating agencies. He made it clear that the law would take its own course and Suzuki might have to pay a price if Bhargava was indicted. They chose to ignore it and went on to appoint Bhargava. The law is merely taking its own course now and the action against him is not unanticipated.

But that was in 1992. Why has it taken till 1996 to take action against Bhargava?

That is exactly what the Assurances Committee holds against us. But the Assurances Committee gave us their recommendations only on August 30, 1995 and we promptly referred the matter to the Ministry of Law. And only in December 1995 did they say that we can move under Section 388(B) of the Companies Act. We have now referred the matter to the Department of Company Affairs. Section 388(B) gives the Government the power to remove managerial personnel from office on the recommendation of the Company Law Board, where in the opinion of the Central Government there are " circumstances suggesting " that the business of the company has not been conducted on sound business principles.

You have been appointed chairman two days prior to the Assurances Committee meeting. Is it mere coincidence or a deliberate move?

Let's just say it's consistent with the fact that the Assurances Committee was meeting in two days time.

There have been reports that theGovernment has been dragging its feet in granting permission for licence renewal. Is it true?

The agreement in 1992 between Suzuki and the Government envisaged transfer of technology and thus there was no need for the licence. But technology was not transferred and neither did Suzuki ask for renewal of the licence. They asked for it only in 1994 and in the September 1995 board meeting we cleared the proposal as an act of goodwill.

With these differences increasing at such a critical time for Maruti...

The differences are not increasing. If I move in as chairman, I will be sitting next to Mr Bhargava in the MUL office. And we'll be talking. But no one will be able to listen to what we say. Eavesdroppers will be very disappointed.