Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Livemint
Livemint
Business
Livemint

Harshad Mehta's wife breaks silence, launches website to defend late Big Bull

Harshad Mehta's wife has claimed that her husband died in police custody due to medical negligence. (Reuters)

Claiming medical negligence, the website, devoted to Harshad Mehta, claims, "On that fateful day, the jail authorities neglected his genuine complaint for 4 precious hours after he suffered the first heart attack at around 7 p.m. He immediately reported the unusual pain to his younger brother Sudhir who was in the next cell from where he could hear Harshad but could not see him. The jail Doctors saw him but did not have any medicine for a heart attack. Harshad, therefore, requested them to give him Sorbitrate (medicine) which I had given at the time of his arrest 54 days ago in an emergency kit which was kept in jail custody. Due to his presence of mind, Harshad requested them to give him that Sorbitrate which kept him alive for about 4 hours. Unfortunately, thereafter the jail authorities did not use that golden time of 4 hours to shift him to a hospital which could have saved his life."

The website goes on to claim that Harshad Mehta was made to walk for a long distance to the Thane hospital where he immediately succumbed in a wheelchair after his cardiogram confirmed a massive second heart attack.

"We were later told that an inquiry was ordered by the authorities and even post-mortem was carried out but neither this Inquiry Report nor the post-mortem Report was provided to us despite our repeated requests. The above facts confirm that there was a gross neglect by the jail authorities in treating my husband in time and in fact Sudhir in the next cell was not even informed at 11 pm about the shifting of Harshad to the hospital and only the next morning he was told that his elder brother was no more. I and my family members reached Thane hospital only after he had already expired and learnt some facts from the Doctors who attended on him. We do not wish such punishment and the tragic death like this even for our enemies," Jyoti claims on the website.

Harshad Mehta's widow has accused the system of 'group punishment' citing, "We feel aggrieved that our fundamental and other valuable constitutional and human rights have been suspended and grossly violated for past 30 years and our family is being meted out with a group punishment even though we have not undertaken a single transaction in securities with the banks nor any banks have lodged any claims on us. There is no allegation made for violation of any law of the land and even though the Torts Act does not provide for or support such a treatment of innocent persons but we have been marked and discriminated against and singled out by the political dispensation of that time. The Custodian has till date also not established any nexus or flow of any tainted monies to us as required in law and CBI even after combing through each and every transaction undertaken by Harshad and studying the flow of monies under these transactions has yet not cited any one of us as accused except the two younger brothers of Harshad."

"The breakdown post Harshad’s demise was fully exploited both by the Income Tax department and the banks who foisted upon Harshad and the rest of us patently false and illegal claims and the banks secured ex-parte decrees against the estate of Harshad for much higher amounts and in some cases where no amounts were not payable at all. The Custodian did not contest the false claims but instead took advantage of our condition and colluded with the IT department and the banks in several ways. Much before the claims against us got finalised and knowing fully well that they were false and highly exaggerated but the Custodian yet supported and secured the release of Rs.3285.46 Crores in favour of the IT department and Rs.1716.07 Crores in favour of the banks and thereby fully met the entire demands of tax and the entire principal sum of the decrees obtained by the banks. To confer benefits on them the Custodian violated the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs. Custodian reported (1998) 5 SCC 1 (hereinafter referred to as Harshad Mehta’s judgment) which violations are explained hereinafter. To meet these patently illegal demands, the Custodian prematurely sold our appreciating Blue Chip shares at throwaway prices and thereby inflicted upon us huge losses of Rs.20,677.28 Crores the details above losses are provided in the enclosed chart," website claims.

Jyoti further added, "The Custodian has also caused us losses by deliberately not recovering our attached assets from banks and third parties valued at more than Rs.5,000 Crores and which included several cases where the Hon’ble Courts have already directed him to recover these assets and several orders remain pending to be complied with by the Custodian for past 25/30 years. The Custodian is governed by two ulterior objects being one to hurt us by conferring favours on to several third parties using our assets and second to create a huge hole in our assets and then falsely canvass that our liabilities exceed assets. From 2006 onwards when we discovered the failures of Custodian and exposed his illegal conduct he has started acting more revengefully against us. The Custodian has also discriminated against us as in the case of other notified entities, he has been recovering their attached assets of even a few lakhs but in our case not recovering our attached assets of thousands of crores and a chart is enclosed in respect of others. We also have large recoveries of shares and accruals from other notified entities which is the simplest task as it involves the transfer of shares and monies from other notified entities to us both of whom are within his control but yet in 10 cases even such recoveries amounting to Rs. 463.56 Crores have deliberately not been caused by the Custodian which conclusively establishes our above allegations. In fact our shares are sold in their hands and monies have been used to discharge the liabilities of other notified entities and details of pending recoveries are provided in enclosed chart."

In defence of her late husband, Jyoti claims on the website, "Since Harshad was vilified through trial by media and which continues even till date by referring to him as a “scamster" even though he was not proved guilty of allegations made against him and therefore I am constrained and compelled to at least posthumously defend him since the subsequent facts and events completely vindicates him of what he had stated and conclusively demolishes baseless allegations made against him by some vested interests. Since the media, movie and the web series has kept him alive, I consider it to be my duty to defend him posthumously since all the facts have emerged and already got established, discovered, proved and become unimpeachable and most of which are in the form of orders passed by Hon’ble Courts and Tribunals."

Note: Mint has not independently verified the legitimacy of the website and the claims made.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.