Former Salima Salima Sugar Company Limited director, Sachin Nikam and Prashant Sharma, who have warrant of arrests hanging on their heads, are on the run.
According to a High Court ruling by Judge Jabbar Alide, a sworn statement by Company Secretary for Salima Sugar Company Limited, Charles Thupi showed that the two are wanted in relation to offences of making false documents, uttering false documents, forgery, conspiracy to defraud, cheating and money laundering.
In the ruling, Alide vacated an injunction obtained by Sharma’s Mukteshwar Sugar Mills Limited, that had frozen the company’s accounts, allowing Salima Sugar to access its funds and resume operations.
In September last year, High Court Commercial Division Judge Ken Manda granted Mukteshwar Sugar Mills Limited, a company whose director is Sharma, an order freezing bank accounts for Salima Sugar Company Limited, restraining it from dealing with any money held in its bank accounts to the tune of K5, 258, 651, 200.
However, when the company challenged the order, it transpired that Sharma and Nikan have been on the run.
In ruling, Alide said looking at the way the two were transacting with Salima Sugar Company Limited, it was obvious that they were running a criminal enterprise.
“It is clear that Mr. Sachin Nikam and Prashant Sharma were both Directors of Salima Sugar Company Limited (Defendant). To make matters worse, Mr. Prashant Sharma was also a director of the Mukteshwar Sugar Mills Limited (Claimant). In effect all these entities were connected and as observed by the Forensic Audit Report that “Mukteshwar Sugar Mills Limited, Ulka Industry Limited, AUM SAL and SSCL perceived majority shareholders and directors were all related.
“I looked at this relationship, shook my head and mused how Mukteshwar Sugar Mills Limited felt that this information was not material, or necessary to the Court for a fair disposal of the application. Instead, Mukteshwar Sugar Mills Limited went on and dwelt on the fact that there were no common directors between AUM Sugar & Allied Limited and the Claimant. Why did the Claimant not disclose that there were common directors between the Claimant and the Defendant? As concluded by the
“Forensic Audit, I also agree that all these companies, shareholders and directors were all related. No wonder they were at peace concluding the contracts subject of this claim without even seeking any board approval and without declaring any interest. Surely, this relationship smacks a semblance of a criminal enterprise. I am not surprised that two directors are on the run.
“Prashant Sharma and Sachim Nikam had warrant of arrests hanging on their heads and were facing criminal prosecution as a result of some of the findings of the forensic audit. Some of the findings upon which the two had been charged and were facing prosecution was directly related to the issue of the contracts which are the subject of the present matter. The Claimant also submitted that the two had since escaped the jurisdiction,” reads part of the order by Alide
