- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
SC To Hear Home Buyers’ Plea Seeking Direction To Recover Rs 42.22 Crore Paid By Amrapali To Former Captain Dhoni
By Bobby Anthony A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has agreed to hear a plea by home buyers asking it to pass a direction to recover Rs 42.22 crore paid by the Amrapali Group to former Indian cricket captain M S Dhoni as an endorsement fee.Advocate Kumar Mihir who represents those who had purchased homes from the Amrapali Group stated that the Supreme Court would take up the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has agreed to hear a plea by home buyers asking it to pass a direction to recover Rs 42.22 crore paid by the Amrapali Group to former Indian cricket captain M S Dhoni as an endorsement fee.
Advocate Kumar Mihir who represents those who had purchased homes from the Amrapali Group stated that the Supreme Court would take up the matter during the next hearing scheduled in January 2020, and insisted that he would seek directions from the top court to Dhoni to refund the money.
He stated that the endorsement fee was paid to Rhiti Sports, which is owned by Dhoni.
It may be recalled that the Supreme Court’s July 23 judgment had concluded that the Amrapali Group had diverted Rs 42.22 crore deposited by home buyers to clear bills of its then brand ambassador Dhoni.
Although the Supreme Court has already ruled that all directors and officials of Amrapali and other group companies involved has to deposit the diverted funds with the court, it is yet to pass any direction in this matter.
Significantly, forensic auditors had observed that, during 2009 to 2015, Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Ltd had paid Rs 6.52 crore out of Rs 42.22 crore from the Amrapali Group of companies, to Rhiti Sports Management Private Ltd, owned by Dhoni.
Also, citing the Supreme Court’s July 23 judgment, the home buyers’ lawyers stated that forensic auditors found that Amrapali and Rhiti Sports had made these agreements to deploy a channel to divert the money to this company. He stated that the Supreme Court had already accepted these findings.
The forensic auditors' report had mentioned that the deal signed between the Amrapali Group to Rhiti Sports Management Private Ltd had helped the Amrapali group to market its brand through company logos at various places during IPL 2015 for Chennai Super Kings.
The forensic auditors’ report had also stated that the deals were executed by Amrapali's CMD Anil Kumar Sharma, as a representative of the Amrapali Group, though there is no resolution on record, which authorized him to represent all Amrapali Group companies.