As Niskalp’s losses continued to rise in 2001, Tata Finance used one final measure
in a desperate attempt to resolve, or at least conceal, its rapidly deteriorating finan-
cial condition. The company chose to “desubsidiarise Niskalp, allegedly to protect its
own balance sheet by not having to disclose the losses of its subsidiary any more.”4
This stopgap measure failed to remedy Tata Finance‘s underlying financial problem,
namely, its lack of adequate equity capital. Pendse then turned to his superiors at the
Tata Group who provided the equity capital needed to rescue Tata Finance. Shortly
after Tata Finance’s true financial condition-was revealed to the public, the Tata
Group dismissed Dilip Pendse and four of his key subordinates. In August 2001, the
Tata Group filed a complaint with law enforcement authorities charging Pendse with
criminal breach of trust. Two months later, the remaining members of Tata Finance’s
board resigned as did the company’s audit firm, S. B. Billimoria & Co.
When the details of the Tata accounting scandal were revealed, the Indian busi-
ness press immediately pointed out that the accounting gimmicks used by 'l'ata'
Finance were very similar to abusive accounting methods used by Enron in the
United States. Like the Enron debacle, Tata Finances independent audit firm faced
heated criticismfrom the business press for failing to uncover and stop those abusive
accounting methods. When asked to comment on the Tata scandal, S. B. Billimoria’s
managing partner noted, “Operating under the constraints of time and cost we pre-
sume full honesty from our clients. After all, an audit is not an investigation