Adani Says Regulatory Curbs Do Not Restrict Bid to Take Over NDTV

Adani in a statement said the founders’ investment entity was not part of any regulatory restrictions and was ‘bound to immediately perform its obligation and allot the equity shares’ to the conglomerate.

Mumbai: Adani Group on Friday, August 26 rejected claims made by New Delhi Television (NDTV) that regulatory curbs restricted the news network’s founders from selling their stake in the company.

Adani Group, led by Asia’s richest man Gautam Adani, is trying to take over NDTV, regarded by some as one of the few independent voices in India’s rapidly polarising media landscape. The move has triggered concerns about NDTV’s editorial integrity, with the news channel saying the billionaire moved without its consent..

NDTV on Thursday, August 25 sought to block Adani‘s move by saying its founders Prannoy and Radhika Roy have since 2020 been barred by the market regulator from buying or selling shares in India’s securities market, and so can’t transfer the shares Adani is seeking.

Also read: Gautam Adani Knocks on the Doors of NDTV. How Does the Hostile Takeover Play Out? 

Adani said in a statement on Friday that the NDTV founders’ arguments were “baseless, legally untenable”.

It said the founders’ investment entity was not part of any regulatory restrictions and was “bound to immediately perform its obligation and allot the equity shares” to the conglomerate.

Adani is trying to execute the takeover through a little-known Indian company Vishvapradhan Commercial Private Ltd (VCPL). It gave Rs 400 crore ($50 million) in loans to NDTV’s founders more than a decade ago in exchange for warrants that allowed it to buy a stake in the news group at any time.

The conglomerate said on August 23 it had acquired VCPL and exercised those rights.

(Reuters)

Court Dismisses Future’s Plea to Declare Arbitration with Amazon ‘Illegal’

Amazon and Future have been locked in legal battles for several months.

Mumbai: An Indian court on Tuesday dismissed Future Retail’s plea to declare arbitration proceedings with its warring partner Amazon.com Inc as illegal.

The ruling came after Future urged a New Delhi judge that given India‘s antitrust agency had suspended a 2019 deal used by Amazon to assert rights over Future, there was no legal basis for the arbitration between the two sides to continue.

Justice Amit Bansal at the Delhi high court said on Tuesday that the filings were dismissed, without giving any further details.

A written order will be released later Tuesday.

Amazon and Future have been locked in legal battles for several months. The US company has successfully used the terms of its $200 million investment in a Future unit in 2019 to block the Indian retailer’s attempt to sell retail assets to rival Reliance Industries, alleging breach of certain contracts.

Future denies any wrongdoing.

(Reuters)

 

Reliance’s Kirana-Driven Delivery Model Throws a Wrench for Salesmen

The mom-and-pop stores, known as ‘kiranas’, can order goods on JioMart Partner with deliveries promised within 24 hours. That means salesmen representing consumer giants face an existential threat to their business.

Sangli (Maharashtra): For eight straight days, household goods salesman Vipresh Shah has failed to sell a single pack of Dettol soap to the storekeepers who have been buying from him ever since he took over his family business as a teenager, 14 years ago.

Shah is an official distributor for Britain’s Reckitt Benckiser in Vita, near Sangli city, around 200 miles south of Mumbai. But he said once-loyal customers now point to an app – JioMart Partner – on their smartphones showing prices up to 15% lower, instead of placing orders.

“As Reckitt’s distributor, I used to be like a prince in the market,” said Shah. “Now the buyer tells me, ‘See how much you’ve been ripping us off!'”

The 31-year-old said he lost $2,000 of his own money as he discounted products to match prices on JioMart, the app rolled out by Reliance Industries billionaire Mukesh Ambani in his drive to revolutionise retail distribution in India.

Up and down India in places like small town Vita, the momandpop stores that account for four-fifths of a near-$900 billion retail market, more than $700 billion are increasingly turning to JioMart to stock up on foreign and domestic brands.

Just as Ambani, India’s richest man, has disrupted the country’s telecoms industry, the tycoon is intent on shaking up retail distribution, taking on U.S. e-commerce giants like Amazon and Walmart Inc, expanding fast in India.

The country has around 450,000 traditional distributors, who have legions of salespeople to service every corner of the vast nation, including 600,000 villages. They typically earn a margin of 3-5% on product prices and mostly take orders physically once a week, making deliveries to retailers within a couple of days.

But Reliance’s model throws a wrench in that supply chain: the momandpop stores, known as ‘kiranas’, can order goods on JioMart Partner with deliveries promised within 24 hours. Reliance also offers training on ordering, credit facilities and free product samples for affiliated kiranas’ customers.

That means hundreds of thousands of salesmen representing consumer giants like Reckitt, Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive, face an existential threat to their business, according to interviews with salespeople, 20 distributors and a trader group with members across India.

Many of the distributors contacted by Reuters said they have slashed their workforce or vehicle fleet, seeing their sales from door-to-door agents drop 20-25% in the last year as shopkeepers partner with Reliance.

In Vita, salesman Shah said he has had to lay off half of his staff of four. He fears the 50-year-old family firm might not last beyond the next six months.

Also read: ‘Nomadland’ Is a Glimpse Into Why China Is the Us of Asia

‘Guerrilla tactics’

The scale and speed of the disruption have triggered tensions between traditional distributors and Reliance that have boiled over into physical confrontation in some cases.

In Maharashtra state in the west – home to Vita – and Tamil Nadu in south, traditional salesmen have organised blockades of some JioMart delivery vehicles.

“We will employ guerrilla tactics,” said Dhairyashil Patil, president of the All India Consumer Products Distributors Federation, which represents 400,000 agents of local and foreign consumer firms. “We will continue to agitate,” he told Reuters, “we want (consumer goods) companies to realise our value.”

Reliance remains undeterred in pushing ahead with Ambani‘s “new commerce” retail venture, first announced in 2018.

A shopkeeper selling consumer goods displays Reliance's JioMart point-of-sale machine that he uses to order supplies for his store in Sangli, in the western state of Maharashtra, India, October 21, 2021. REUTERS/Abhirup Roy

A shopkeeper selling consumer goods displays Reliance’s JioMart point-of-sale machine that he uses to order supplies for his store in Sangli, in Maharashtra, October 21, 2021. Photo: Reuters/Abhirup Roy

Last year it raised funds from marquee investors including Silver Lake Partners and KKR & Co Inc as it seeks to integrate momandpop stores in what it has touted as a more inclusive approach to digital commerce. That push is widely seen countering the likes of Amazon, which have for years faced – and denied – claims in India of favouring select big sellers at the expense of smaller retailers.

A source close to Reliance said the company was determined to keep expanding its business for momandpop stores. It believes its model can co-exist alongside the traditional approach in one of the world’s biggest retail markets, the person said, declining to be identified because of lack of authority to disclose company plans.

Ambani in 2018 said he eventually wanted to connect 30 million small merchants to the Reliance network. So far, it has 300,000 merchant partners in 150 cities who order consumer goods from Reliance, but the transformation will be magnified many times over if it meets a target of adding 10 million partner stores by 2024.

Reliance did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

Colgate declined to comment, while Reckitt said its customers and distributors were an integral part of its business but it does not comment on its relationship with them. Unilever’s India arm, Hindustan Unilever, did not respond to a request for comment.

Also read: Paytm Listing: And They All Fall Down…

Which channel?

The traditional distribution methods remain important to the consumer goods makers, even amid the disruption, industry watchers say.

Himanshu Bajaj, former Asia consumer and retail head at consulting firm Kearney, said CEOs of consumer firms he met in September raised concerns about Reliance’s strategy upsetting the traditional distribution chain.

“The companies don’t want to kill their own distributors. The worry is real,” he said.

Asked about Reliance’s model and concerns among distributors, Sunil D’Souza, CEO of India’s Tata Consumer Products, told Reuters in an interview last month it “can’t afford to sit back and ignore” any major distribution channel, but Tata was trying to minimise conflict and strike a balance.

Jefferies in March estimated kiranas will “steadily increase the share of procurement” from Reliance “at the cost of traditional distributors”. Such sales for Reliance could mushroom to $10.4 billion by 2025 from just $200 million in 2021-22, Jefferies estimates.

One executive who works for a rival to Reliance said Ambani “was spreading his wings very fast” in servicing kiranas and already has an edge on negotiating prices, due to long-standing relationships with consumer good makers which have for years counted Reliance and its 1,100 supermarkets as a big client.

With kirana partners, Ambani is adding another, major vertical. “Brands cannot afford to sideline Reliance, it’s just their sheer purchasing power,” said the executive, who declined to be identified as he wasn’t authorised to speak with media.

All about pricing

Many kiranas are cramped shops in ageing buildings, where branded products are placed on wooden shelves and small sachets dangle from the ceiling. Such retailers are embracing Reliance as a means to boost profit margins.

When Reuters accompanied Anuruddh Mishra, a sales agent for Colgate, during a field trip in Mumbai’s Dharavi area, he struggled to convince Shivkumar Singh, the 50-year-old owner of a dilapidated store, to make purchases. Dharavi is home to 1 million people and rated one of the world’s biggest slums.

Singh opened his JioMart app and showed the far lower prices on offer. “How can I order from traditional distributors?” he said. “The difference in price is huge. Now I order mostly from Reliance.”

Shivkumar Singh, an owner of a store selling consumer goods, speaks with a sales representative at his store in Dharavi, Mumbai, in the western state of Maharashtra, India, September 16, 2021. REUTERS/Francis Mascarenhas

Shivkumar Singh, an owner of a store selling consumer goods, speaks with a sales representative at his store in Dharavi, Mumbai, in Maharashtra, September 16, 2021. Photo: Reuters/Francis Mascarenhas

A Reuters review of purchase deals on the JioMart Partner app showed the Dharavi retailer could bulk buy a two-tube combo of Colgate MaxFresh toothpaste for about 115 rupees ($1.55). Salesman Mishra’s distribution company gets it for 145 rupees, and his last offer to the Dharavi retailer was 154 rupees – still more than a third higher than the Reliance price.

Back in Sangli, traditional distributors said they have at times chased down Reliance vehicles and confronted drivers, alleging unauthorised deliveries.

Sunil Pujari, who works in the city for one JioMart delivery agent, said he had been warned by his supervisors to immediately alert them if angry distributors stopped vehicles.

But business remains brisk.

“Prices offered by JioMart cannot be matched by anyone,” he said, making another delivery in a crowded market.

(Reuters)

SEBI Fines Franklin Templeton India’s Trustee and CEO for Violating Rules

Franklin has faced regulatory investigations and court battles since April 2020 when it unexpectedly wound up six credit funds in India with assets of close to $4 billion, citing a lack of liquidity amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Mumbai: The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) fined Franklin Templeton India‘s trustee, chief executive and officials, including fund mangers, on Monday for violating rules while overseeing credit funds that unexpectedly shut down last year.

The markets regulator said chief executive Sanjay Sapre failed to address the risk of illiquid underlying portfolios while fund managers did not ensure funds were invested in the best interest of unitholders.

It fined the fund manager’s trustee and eight Franklin India officials, including Sapre, a total of Rs 15 crore ($2 million) only a week after fining the investment giant Rs 50 crore for lapses and violations related to the funds.

The trustee Franklin Templeton Trustee Services said in a statement to Reuters that it disagreed with SEBI’s findings and intended to appeal. In a separate statement, Franklin Templeton said its employees acted “in compliance with regulations and in the best interest of unitholders”.

Watch | Explained: Franklin Templeton’s Debt Fund Imbroglio

Franklin has faced regulatory investigations and court battles since April 2020 when it unexpectedly wound up six credit funds in India with assets of close to $4 billion, citing a lack of liquidity amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The funds had large exposures to higher-yielding, lower-rated credit securities.

Last week, the regulator also banned Franklin Templeton, one of India‘s most prominent fixed-income fund houses, from launching any new debt schemes for two years after an investigation into the fund closures.

Commenting on the trustee, SEBI said in its 151-page order that it “failed to render at all times high standards of service, exercise due diligence, ensure proper care and exercise independent professional judgment”.

In an email to investors on Wednesday, Franklin said it continues to manage more than Rs 61,000 crore ($8 billion) for more than two million investors in India and it was committed to serving Indian investors.

(Reuters)

Delhi HC Lifts Hold on Future’s $3.4 Billion Retail Deal in Setback for Amazon

The Delhi court last week sided with the US online retailer and put Future’s asset sale to Reliance Industries on hold, leading to an appeal from the Indian retail group.

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Monday overturned an order that had stalled Future Group’s $3.4 billion deal to sell its retail assets, two sources said, in a setback for Future’s partner Amazon.com Inc, which has challenged the sale.

The Delhi court last week sided with the US online retailer and put Future’s asset sale to Reliance Industries on hold, leading to an appeal from the Indian retail group.

A two-judge bench hearing Future’s appeal on Monday put on hold the previous ruling, which had effectively stalled the mega retail deal, two sources familiar with the proceedings said.

Future in its appeal had said its creditors would be at “significant risk” if the Reliance deal failed.

“It is a major setback for Amazon,” said one of the sources.

In a fight between two of the world’s richest men Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Reliance’s Mukesh Ambani the US giant has argued that Future breached certain 2019 contracts by agreeing to the deal with Reliance. Future has denied any wrongdoing.

Also read: Wealth of Indian Billionaires Rose by Over a Third During the COVID-19 Lockdown

Amazon has argued in the Delhi courts that an October decision by an arbitrator who had put the Reliance deal on hold is enforceable. Future has maintained that its retail unit was not party to the arbitration agreement and the order was not binding on the company.

The two-judge Delhi high court bench agreed that Future’s retail unit was not a party to the arbitration agreement invoked by Amazon, Future said, welcoming the order in a filing to stock exchanges.

Amazon did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A detailed written order has yet to be made public.

Future is India‘s second-largest retailer with over 1,700 stores, and agreed to sell its retail businesses to market leader Reliance last year.

(Reuters) 

SEBI Bars Future Group CEO Kishore Biyani From Securities Market in Insider Trading Case

Biyani is separately fighting a legal challenge from Amazon over the sale of Future’s retail assets.

Mumbai: Markets regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on Wednesday barred Future Group chief executive Kishore Biyani and his brother Anil from accessing the securities market for a year after investigating insider trading in shares of its retail firm Future Retail in 2017.

SEBI said the two brothers traded in shares of Future Retail through a group company on the basis of unpublished price sensitive information before a demerger of certain businesses of Future Retail that pushed its share price higher.

A spokesman for Future and the two Biyani brothers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Also read: A Look Inside an Amazon Warehouse – Where Profits Are Placed Ahead of Workers

The SEBI investigation found that the Biyanis opened a trading account for an entity named Future Corporate Resources Private Limited, which traded in Future Retail’s shares before the demerger decision was made public.

SEBI also barred Biyani from trading in Future Retail shares for two years. Future Corporate Resources and the two Biyani brothers will each need to pay a penalty of Rs 1 crore ($137,099) within 45 days, SEBI said.

Kishore Biyani is separately fighting a legal challenge from Amazon.com Inc over the sale of Future’s retail assets.

A court in New Delhi blocked Future Group’s sale of retail assets to Reliance Industries on Tuesday. Future has said its retail unit faces insolvency if the deal fails.

(Reuters)

Still Adrift, PMC Bank Depositors Survive on Loans and Charity

The withdrawal cap is now at Rs 100,000 per depositor.

Mumbai/New Delhi: In February, 82-year-old Kishan Lal appealed to India’s finance minister for help, saying in a Twitter message he was ready to donate his kidney and eyes if someone could help arrange funds to treat his daughter, who had a brain tumour.

The Lals had enough savings to tide over the medical crisis – more than 2.5 million rupees ($33,450) in Punjab & Maharashtra Co-operative (PMC) Bank. But withdrawals were capped at 50,000 rupees from each account at the time because authorities were investigating fraud at PMC.

The withdrawal cap is now at 100,000 rupees per depositor.

“I just borrowed money from wherever I could, I had to save my daughter,” said Lal. “If I had access to my own money, I’d not have been ashamed.”

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) took control of PMC last September after it was accused of fraud and concealing non-performing loans. PMC’s top officials and the owners of a realty company that received the bulk of the loans were arrested.

The withdrawal cap has left many of PMC’s over 900,000 depositors in deep difficulty. Some say they are struggling to clear loans or pay their children’s school fees, while others say they depend on friends for their groceries.

Kishan Lal, 82, and his daughter look at documents inside their house in Mumbai, India, August 19, 2020. Picture taken August 19, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Hemanshi Kamani

The situation at PMC has also amplified concerns about the health of India’s tens of thousands of co-operative banks, which often serve communities in the rural interior and have assets worth around $220 billion, about 11% of India’s total banking sector assets.

These banks, many of which are tiny, are subject to less stringent regulation than commercial banks and currently, more than two dozen of them are facing lending or withdrawal restrictions by the RBI because of financial irregularities.

The coronavirus has hit the broader banking sector hard, raising concerns about soaring bad loans as household and corporate debt rise. Liquidity risks have increased for non-bank financial companies and the state banking system needs to be recapitalised.

But some analysts are concerned that the pandemic is likely to have a more pronounced effect on the fragile co-operative banks.

“They lend to riskier borrowers who have higher chances of defaulting due to the pandemic,” said Jignesh Shial, a banking analyst at brokerage Emkay Global.

Asked about the delay in resolving PMC’s problems, Jai Bhagwan Bhoria, an administrator appointed by the RBI to revive the bank, told Reuters: “The recovery is an ongoing process and it takes time in actual realisations due to legal steps and hurdles faced.”

Tale of two lenders

The PMC crisis has also sparked courtroom battles. In one of them, Sandeep Bhalla, whose parents have nearly 10 million rupees blocked in PMC, has told the Delhi High Court that depositors of PMC were “discriminated against” compared to those from commercial lender Yes Bank.

In March, the RBI imposed a cap of 50,000 rupees on withdrawals from Yes Bank, then India’s fifth-largest bank in terms of assets, after its finances deteriorated.

But less than 24 hours later, the finance minister announced that India’s top state-run bank, SBI (SBI.NS), would infuse funds into Yes Bank and the withdrawal curbs were subsequently lifted.

The finance ministry told the court the government had not infused any funds in Yes Bank but it was investors and the SBI who came to its rescue, according to court documents. SBI is 57% government owned.

The judge wasn’t convinced.

Noting PMC depositors were in a “dire state”, the court said the RBI and the finance ministry played a crucial role in rescuing Yes Bank and asked them both to “delve into the aspect” of why PMC depositors were differently treated.

A depositor of the Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank (PMC) shouts slogans during a protest over the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) curbs on the bank, in Mumbai, India, October 30, 2019. Photo: Reuters/Francis Mascarenhas/File Photo

The RBI told the court the two lenders were “fundamentally different,” including the different regulations governing them. It also said with PMC’s “really precarious financials”, no investors were willing to bail it out.

The finance ministry submitted that the RBI had rescued Yes Bank as it found it necessary in the public and depositors’ interest, but the central bank had not proposed any such rescue for PMC.

The court is next set to hear the case in mid-September, just ahead of the first anniversary of PMC’s collapse.

Asked for further comment, the finance ministry referred Reuters questions to the RBI, which did not respond.

“Get well soon RBI”

Set up in 1984, PMC is a regional lender with 137 branches across six states and by last year it had deposits of $1.5 billion. Yes Bank is far bigger with more than 1,000 branches across India.

Many depositors said they were unaware of the differing regulatory structures for banks, and believed PMC was like any other commercial lender.

“If it was not safe, why did you name it a bank?” asked Pooja Chaudhary, 26, who said she had to struggle for hours last month to get custody of her father’s body after a hospital refused to release it until she cleared medical bills.

“My father died, and I couldn’t even cry,” said Chaudhary, whose said her savings of 1.5 million rupees were blocked in PMC.

Earlier this month, dozens of PMC depositors organised a protest in Mumbai and shouted slogans against the central bank.

“Get well soon RBI. Thanks for doing your job so well that we lost all our life savings,” read one poster.

On Facebook, depositors regularly post videos and photos to amplify their request for help. Each day, hundreds of messages are shared on a Telegram messaging app group of about 4,000 members where depositors discuss next steps, or simply vent.

Kishan Lal and his daughter Bony say they remain at the mercy of loans. Lal said he has developed a prostate problem but is not treating it, and is skipping his regular blood-pressure medicines as savings remain blocked at PMC.

Bony, 43, is distraught while battling her own illnesses. “It is our hard-earned tax-paid money,” she said, “and we are having to literally beg for it.”

(Reuters)

Bombay HC Quashes Govt Attempt to Ban Deloitte, KPMG Affiliate

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs had sought the ban as the two companies had aided the alleged fraud at IL&FS, which led to its near-collapse in 2018.

Mumbai/New Delhi: The Bombay high court on Tuesday quashed efforts by the federal government to impose a ban on auditors Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP and a KPMG affiliate for their alleged abetment of financial fraud at a domestic firm.

The government had sought to impose a five-year ban on Deloitte and KPMG’s affiliate, BSR & Associates, for aiding the alleged fraud at a unit of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services, whose near-collapse in 2018 had triggered financial contagion fears.

Deloitte’s term as an auditor ended in 2018, while BSR resigned voluntarily in June 2019, just days after the government sought to ban them.

Ruling on a court challenge against the ban by BSR and Deloitte, the Bombay high court upheld the auditor’s arguments that they were erstwhile auditors of the Indian firm and so cannot be banned under a provision of law invoked by the federal government, a government source said of the court’s ruling.

The court’s 198-page order showed the government has sought an eight-week delay before its Tuesday ruling comes in force.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is likely to appeal the ruling in India’s Supreme Court, according to a second government official with direct knowledge.

Deloitte and KPMG did not respond to a request for comment.

As part of a widespread probe of the alleged fraud and mismanagement at IL&FS, India had detected at least 22 violations of auditing standards by the auditors, according to legal filings seen by Reuters.

Both auditors denied any wrongdoing.

(Reuters)

CBI Scrutinises Law Firm Cyril Amarchand in PNB Fraud Investigation

K. Raghavacharyulu, a prosecution lawyer in the Nirav Modi case and two CBI sources who declined to be named, said CAM possessed documents detailing Nirav Modi’s dealings with PNB, even though the firm wasn’t representing the diamond magnate or his companies.

Mumbai/New Delhi: India’s largest law firm, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (CAM), is being scrutinised by federal agents after they seized documents related to the $2 billion fraud at state-run Punjab National Bank (PNB) from CAM’s premises in February, a lawyer representing the government and a police source told Reuters.

In what has been dubbed as India’s biggest bank fraud, PNB in January alleged that billionaire diamond jeweller Nirav Modi and his uncle had for years fraudulently raised billions of dollars in foreign credit by conspiring with staff at the bank.

In mid-February, Nirav Modi’s aides packed cartons of documents at one of his diamond firm’s offices in Mumbai and sent them to CAM’s office nearby, from where police seized them within a week on February 21, a review of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) court filings and witness testimonies showed.

K. Raghavacharyulu, a prosecution lawyer in the Nirav Modi case and two CBI sources who declined to be named, said CAM possessed documents detailing Modi’s dealings with PNB, even though the firm wasn’t representing the diamond magnate or his companies.

“CAM was not their attorney in the PNB fraud case, 100% sure … that’s why they could not cite attorney-client privilege,” Raghavacharyulu said, adding that his assessment was based on regular briefings he received from CBI investigating officers.

CAM declined to comment on its relationship with Nirav Modi, who is on the run overseas. Its spokeswoman, Madhumita Paul, said the firm “strictly follows the legal best practices and does not comment on matters that are sub-judice or are under investigation”.

In CBI’s first charge sheet in May in the fraud case against Modi and others, the agency said that “incriminating documents/articles relevant to the case” were concealed in the office of CAM. No charges were brought against the law firm and it was not named as a witness in the case.

Since then, Raghavacharyulu said, police have not interviewed any CAM official in the case, though one CBI source said that before filing the first chargesheet, police summoned, questioned and recorded the statement of at least one junior CAM lawyer.

That statement has still not been produced in court because the agency is deliberating whether to charge the law firm for concealment of evidence or name it as a prosecution witness to testify against Nirav Modi, the source said.

Raghavacharyulu said it is possible the police could bring charges against CAM for helping conceal documents. “Who told you we are not going to charge them?” he said. “The possibility of naming CAM in the next Nirav Modi case charge sheet has not been ruled out.”

CAM declined to comment on the possibility of being charged or being named as a witness, and said the Reuters findings were “full of false and speculative statements”. It did not elaborate.

The firm didn’t comment on why it possessed the documents seized by the CBI.

CBI’s spokesman, Abhishek Dayal, declined to comment for this article, saying the PNB fraud case was under investigation and it will not be appropriate to say anything at this stage.

The CBI first learnt of CAM’s possession of the documents when it questioned Nirav Modi’s office staff, the police source said. The documents were moved in a mini-truck in 50-60 cartons to the law firm, according to two witness testimonies seen by Reuters.

On the afternoon of February 20, CBI officers went to CAM’s office with a legal search authorisation and the documents were found in a meeting room, according to a previously unreported 10-page CBI “search list” seen by Reuters.

The CBI search – which involved eight federal police officers – included locking and sealing the meeting room overnight as the search dragged on over two days. On the night of February 21, CBI officers left with 24,625 pages of documents, which included copies of financial statements of Nirav Modi’s firms and details of interbank fund transfers, according to the search list.

CAM has more than 600 lawyers. It has advised companies such as Alphabet Inc’s Google, Microsoft, Standard Chartered and India’s ICICI Bank, according to research firm The Legal 500. It also advises Thomson Reuters, which owns Reuters, the company’s news division.

(Reuters)