‘Malvin­der De­manded ₹ 1,000 cr for an Am­i­ca­ble Sep­a­ra­tion’

The Economic Times - - Companies: Pursuit Of Profit -

Shivin­der Mo­han Singh, co-pro­moter of RHC Hold­ing and for­mer co­pro­moter of For­tis Health­care, said he has pulled out of the ne­go­ti­a­tion process with his el­der brother Malvin­der Mo­han Singh af­ter the lat­ter de­manded ₹ 1,000 crore for am­i­ca­ble sep­a­ra­tion. A day af­ter Malvin­der posted a video al­leg­ing Shivin­der as­saulted him, the younger brother told ET’s Arun Ku­mar that he wants to sep­a­rate him­self in every way from Malvin­der, as he be­lieves their ide­olo­gies and in­tent are con­flict­ing. Edited ex­cerpts:

What would you like to say about the video your brother put out on Thurs­day?

It’s sad and shock­ing to see the chair­man of the group re­sort to such em­bar­rass­ing tac­tics. It just goes to show his des­per­a­tion to di­vert from fun­da­men­tal is­sues and the fact that he is ready to lie bla­tantly and so pub­li­caly to cre­ate a nar­ra­tive to make him­self look like the vic­tim. I would just like to clar­ify for the record that it was Malvin­der who as­saulted me, and I de­fended my­self. I would like to move on to talk about more press­ing is­sues at hand.

Are you not in the process of me­di­a­tion with Malvin­der? Where does it stand?

I took the de­ci­sion to file a case in the NCLT as I was ex­as­per­ated by the way the chair­man was tak­ing de­ci­sions in the past few years, put­ting the in­ter­ests of the en­tire group in jeop­ardy. You would re­call, I had taken vol­un­tary re­tire­ment from all ex­ec­u­tive roles in the group in 2015, be­liev­ing that I was leav­ing the group in the able hands of Malvin­der. Un­able to un­der­stand the de­ci­sions made in my ab­sence, and un­able to align on the way for­ward once I was called back, I de­cided to look at le­gal so­lu­tions to sort out our dif­fer­ences. How­ever, my mother was most dis­turbed, and at her re­quest I agreed to en­ter into a me­di­a­tion with my brother.

Hav­ing now ful­filled my duty as a son, and seen that it has not led us any­where, I would like to clearly state that all me­di­a­tion be­tween me and Malvin­der has ended. I can­not me­di­ate with a man whose value sys­tem and fun­da­men­tals con­tinue to dam­age our fam­ily rep­u­ta­tion and the group’s le­gacy.

It is clear that both of us can­not jointly lead the group as our val­ues and ways of work­ing are com­pletely op­po­site. I would like to set­tle with our cred­i­tors and re­solve is­sues and move for­ward, whereas all he is in­ter­ested in is try­ing to milk the sys­tem for his per­sonal greed even as it sits on its deathbed.

You have talked about ‘per­sonal greed’. Can you sub­stan­ti­ate? There are too many in­stances that I have found which are highly ques­tion­able and I don’t think it is the ap­pro­pri­ate fo­rum to get into these de­tails. How­ever, let me just share the fun­da­men­tal rea­son for the fail­ure of me­di­a­tion be­tween Malvin­der and me.

Malvin­der, whilst he agreed that I would be bet­ter able to sort the cur­rent is­sues, de­manded to be paid to hand over the charge. He said he would be happy to exit the group but wanted the group to pay him

₹ 1,000 crore. I found this not only il­le­gal but also blas­phe­mous. With the group’s mount­ing fi­nan­cial li­a­bil­i­ties and le­gal is­sues, I won­dered where he ex­pects that kind of money to be made avail­able from. It is a level of self­ish­ness and greedy self-preser­va­tion that is be­yond my com­pre­hen­sion. Not just our debts and cred­i­tors, but also con­sid­er­ing the high court orders in the on­go­ing Dai­ichi case where our ac­counts are frozen, this kind of think­ing is out­ra­geous.

It is im­pos­si­ble to me­di­ate with such an in­di­vid­ual and it would be wrong on my part to al­low this in­di­vid­ual to con­tinue in any­way to be a part of this group.

What were you ex­pect­ing to achieve in the me­di­a­tion?

I with­drew my case af­ter the me­di­a­tors got Malvin­der and me to agree to some prin­ci­ples. The most es­sen­tial of which was that both of us can­not work to­gether and the me­di­a­tion process should de­ter­mine who should lead the group and take the onus of sort­ing out the var­i­ous is­sues fac­ing the group.

Con­sid­er­ing Malvin­der’s re­la­tion­ship and stand­ing with Dai­ichi, Reli­gare and For­tis and their dif­fi­dences in work­ing with him, I of­fered to lead the group and he could step aside and I would take the re­spon­si­bil­ity of the en­tire group’s li­a­bil­i­ties and work with our var­i­ous cred­i­tors to re­solve the is­sues.

So what is your way for­ward? We need to be clear and find a le­gal sep­a­ra­tion, which al­lows the best pos­si­ble so­lu­tion to the group, be­cause the cur­rent con­struct is only mak­ing mat­ters worse and help­ing no one.

ET AR­CHIVES

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.