Top Stories
FUTURE RETAIL BUYS HYPERCITY FOR $100 MN
Friday, October 06, 2017
1.24 million square feet. In the financial year ended March
2017, the company posted revenue of `1,191 crore, up from
`1,035 crore the year before.
K Raheja group company Shoppers Stop Ltd said it will sell
its 51.09% stake in Hypercity for `79.18 crore in cash and
`255.4 crore in shares to Future Retail, in a separate filing.
Raheja family and group companies holds the remaining
stake in Hypercity.
On October 5, Kishore Biyani-led Future Retail Ltd agreed
to acquire K Raheja Corp group company Hypercity Retail
(India) Ltd for `655 crore ($100 million) in a cash-and-stock
deal. `155 crore will be paid in cash by Future Retail and
issue shares worth `500 crore. 9.31 million shares at `537 a
piece will be shared by the company, higher than its closing
price at the BSE of `527.65.
The transaction will strengthen Future Retail’s presence in
the hypermarket segment. Hypercity was set up in 2004
and operates 19 hypermarket stores with a total area of
Approvals from stock exchanges and the Competition
Commission of India will be needed, and the transaction is
likely to be completed in three to five months’ time.
The company operated 235 Big Bazaar hypermarkets, 54
Fbb outlets and 538 EasyDay stores as of March 2017. It
also operated seven Foodhall stores, 30 Ezone electronic
outlets and 37 furniture stores under the HomeTown brand,
according to an analyst presentation. In total, it operated
901 stores in 240 cities across India.
The acquisition of Hypercity is in line with Future Retail’s
plan to expand its chain of hypermarket stores, in three to
five years’ time, to 350.
RIDER TO TRANSFER JUDGE WAIVED: SC COLLEGIUM
Thursday, October 05, 2017
The transfer of a Karnataka high court judge by the Supreme
Court collegium, which led to his resignation, wasn’t its only
controversial transfer recommendation.
Led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, the collegium
transferred five judges, including Justice Jayant Patel, who
put in his papers in protest.
While Justice Patel’s second transfer was against his consent,
the collegium, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar,
Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurien Joseph, allowed
the request of another HC judge to return to his parent
cadre, Andhra Pradesh, waiving a condition attached to his
elevation in 2013.
The collegiums headed by CJIs Altamas Kabir and P
Sathasivam received an undertaking from Naidu, then
a lawyer, that he was willing to be posted in three HCs
other than Andhra’s in 2012-13. Rumors that Naidu
had professional links with the advocate son of Justice
Chelameswar, and was related by marriage to Andhra
CM Chandrababu Naidu surfaced. At the time, Naidu’s
candidature faced opposition not just from members of the
collegium, but also from the government, which returned
his name after the SC recommended it.
The government had raised objections to Naidu’s name
by Justice A R Dave, and asked the SC to reconsider. But
the collegium stuck to its stand, pointing out that nowhere
did the in-house objection hint anything remotely adverse
about the candidate’s integrity. It maintained that, at best,
Justice Dave’s objections were his “subjective views”.
It repeated the recommendation but went by the opinion
given by one of its members, Justice G S Singhvi, and made
the appointment conditional on Naidu agreeing to be
posted outside the Andhra HC.
It asked him to give “unconditional consent” to the choice of
three HCs instead of just the Madras HC, as he had initially
indicated. It was only after Naidu consented to be posted
anywhere among the HCs of Kerala, Karnataka and Madras
that the collegium cleared his name and recommended it to
the government for appointment.
www . legaleraonline . com
| L egal E ra | N ovember 2017
21