Purchase and sale of Ncell shares The Supreme Court requested a written response from the opponents after missing the deadline.

Following the failure to meet the deadline in the share acquisition and sale case of the telecommunications service provider company Ncell, the Supreme Court has issued a demand for a written response from the opponents.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a notice in a daily newspaper, requiring the opponents, Arnold Holdings Ltd. and Satish Lal Acharya, the owner of the British company Spectrolite, to respond in writing within 15 days.

 080-WO-0529 Demand Letter dated 2080/09/03 to issue an appropriate order involving the respondent, which includes you, and the writ petitioner, Amresh Kumar Singh. A copy of the writ petition and the order dated 2080/09/03 are attached to your notice. Since the notice of due date was issued in the name, it was served without a due date. Consequently, the method outlined in section 105 (22) (23) (24) of the Code of Civil method, 2074, which calls for publishing the notice on 2080/10/19, prevented the due date from being served. This notice of deadline has been published in your name, per the order. Within 15 days after the notice's publication date, please provide a written response via yourself or your legal agent," the notice requests.

The notification further states that legal action will be taken if a written response is not received within the allotted period.

Following the announcement on November 13th by the Malaysian business Aziata that it will be selling its shares of Ncell to UK Spectralite UK Limited, independent Member of Parliament Dr. Amresh Kumar Singh has filed a petition in the Supreme Court.

Ajita made the decision to sell the British business owned by Nepali non-resident Satishlal Acharya 100% of the shares of Reynolds Holdings Limited, which controls 80% of Ncell. Aziata declared the sale of the shares for fifty million US dollars, or roughly 6.65 billion rupees at the time, in accordance with US dollar standards.

It has been alleged in MP Singh's suit that the purpose of the share sale was to avoid paying capital gains tax by selling the shares for less than their true value.