Public dispute, legal battle between Jagan Reddy and sister over property

Hyderabad:

The property dispute between former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and his sister YS Sharmila has turned into a high-profile legal battle. Mr Reddy had written to the National Company Law Tribunal or NCLT seeking to cancel the “illegal” transfer of shares held by him and his mother YS Vijayalakshmi in Saraswati Power and Industries Pvt Ltd. He had also written a letter to him accusing him of cheating and fraud. He has no intention of honoring the MoU entered into by him, after the contents of his letter became known, his written response to it has also become public.

While Mr Reddy had said there was no affection between the two anymore, Sharmila has accused him of not distributing the assets equally among YS Rajasekhara Reddy's four grandchildren as he wanted.

On September 10, Mr Reddy and his wife Bharathi Reddy had filed a petition in the NCLT, asking the company to reinstate them as shareholders with the same equity shares they had before Sharmila made the transfer.

After public differences with her brother, YS Sharmila had formed her own party in 2021.

However, the YSR Telangana Party merged with the Congress ahead of the 2024 elections. YS Sharmila was made the chief of Andhra Pradesh Congress and he has launched a scathing attack on Mr. Reddy, who was the Chief Minister at that time. She had also contested the Kadapa Lok Sabha constituency against her cousin Avinash during the elections in May and lost.

In the petition, Mr Reddy and his wife alleged that the share transfer to Sharmila and Vijayamma was done through a board resolution in July 2024 without following proper legal process.

The plea also said Mr Reddy had entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Sharmila in August 2019 to transfer certain properties and shares “with love and affection”, but never executed this transfer. Had gone. Seeing the rivalry between the siblings, Sri Reddy changed his mind.

The recent share transfers were made in violation of this MOU and amounted to “fraudulent deviation of the law”. Mr Reddy argued that the transfer of shares was “void, illegal, void and illegal”.

NCLT has issued notices to all the respondents and scheduled the next hearing for November 8.

Mr Reddy had also written to his sister on August 27, informing her that along with the ancestral property inherited from their father YS Rajasekhara Reddy, he had also set up his own business.

“Because of the love and affection I have always had for you as my sister, I also expressed my intention that, unrelated to any consideration and solely out of love and affection, I intend to transfer certain properties to you In future, this was in addition to the amount of approximately Rs 200 crore given to you directly or through our mother in the last decade, also given by me out of my love and affection for you.” He has written.

But despite his affection, Sharmila made several false statements in public, leading to personal disgrace, he wrote. “Given this and other things you have done, I wonder why there should be any love and affection or fondness for you”.

Responding to the letter on September 12, Sharmila wrote that Mr Reddy was not acting as per his late father's wish to distribute his property equally among his four grandchildren.

“Our father was clear in his instructions that all four of his grandchildren would have to share equally in all the properties he owned during his lifetime, whether related to Bharti Cements, Sakshi, or any other venture he started before his demise. Be.”

Arguing that the transfer of shares was part of the asset sharing “settlement”, he said, “Since you had the upper hand, you bulldozed your way and we agreed to the deal stated in the MOU. Since you are my elder brother And in the interest of resolving family disputes, I agreed to give up my equal share, thus, under the MOU executed on 31.08.2019, only certain properties were handed over to me.

“Now you have decided to file a case against your mother and deprive your sister and her children of the properties to which they are entitled under the MOU. I am amazed at how you have deviated from the path of our great father. Have gone astray beyond limits.” ” she wrote.

He also criticized Mr. Reddy's interference in his political career and claimed that it was “absurd” for him to suggest that he sign a clause that bars him from speaking against him or his cousin Avinash from public forums. .