Delhi HC defers its order on DLF(IPO) till tomorrow

New Delhi, June 11 (UNI) The Delhi High Court today deferred its order on an urgent writ petition filed by one Nirmal N Saigal seeking a stay on the Initial Public Offering(IPO) floated by DLF on the grounds that the prime land of 23 acres situated in Chanakyapuri was his property.

Justice J P Singh of the vacation bench heard the arguments of both the sides and said that its order will be pronounced tomorrow.

The petitioner claimed the DLF company, which has announced its IPO, has misled its investors by showing the purchase of a defunct company, M/s Edward Keventer (successors) Pvt Ltd, whose balance-sheet reflects that it has assets, including tangible assets worth Rs 50,47,000 only, but it has acquired its shares by providing them a loan of Rs 500 crore.

The petitioner said the company had announced that the land has been acquired for super luxury development.

The lawyer for the petitioner, M Sufian Siddiqui, claimed that a property measuring aproximately 23 acres situated at block 39 and 48 Chankyapuri initially belonged to M/s Edward Keventer (successors) Pvt Ltd and his father Narender Nath Saigal was the successor-in-interest to the property.

The petitioner claimed that DLF company has no hold over the land nor does it have its ownership rights, but it has mentioned the name of this property as its own in its representation made in the draft Red Herring Prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Board of India(SEBI).

DLF's lawyers --P V Kapoor and Arun Bhardwaj -- argued the petition was mala fide and it had been filed at the last minute to jeopardise the IPO. DLF contended that since M/s Edwards Keventers company was under floatation, it bought the land in question in the name of Mr Narender Nath Sehgal but later on when the company was incorporated, Mr Nath gave up all its claims over the land vide registered deed dated May 13, 1950.

DlF's lawyer contented that it has become a habit of the petitioners to file frivolous complaints in the court but it could, however, establish no proof of its ownership of the land.

UNI