Turning down the plea of Gandhis and five others for exemption from personal appearance before the trial court – where it is listed for Tuesday – on a complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, justice Sunil Gaur said the gravity of the allegations levelled against them has a ” fraudulent flavor” involving a national political party and “serious imputations smacking of criminality”, and needs to be properly looked into.
In a big blow to Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi, the Delhi High Court on Monday rejected their pleas for quashing the summons issued by the trial court in the National Herald case, and made scathing observations on their “questionable conduct” regarding how they took control of the publication. Turning down the plea of Gandhis and five others for exemption from personal appearance before the trial court – where it is listed for Tuesday – on a complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, justice Sunil Gaur said the gravity of the allegations levelled against them has a ” fraudulent flavor” involving a national political party and “serious imputations smacking of criminality”, and needs to be properly looked into.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –> Congress said it will move the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the high court order. “How does it become a case of cheating, we fail to understand…which is the challenge which led to the stay of over one year,” asked Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Other than Gandhis, those accused in the case are Suman Dubey, Moti Lal Vohra, Oscar Fernandez, Sam Pitroda and Young India Ltd. The judge, in his 27-page order, said: “After having considered the entire case in its proper perspective, this court finds no hesitation to put it on record that the modus operandi adopted by petitioners in taking control of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) via special purpose vehicle i.e. Young India Ltd (YIL), particularly when the main persons in Congress party, AJL and YIL are the same, evidences a criminal intent. Whether it is cheating, criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust is not required to be spelt out at this nascent stage.” “In any case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that no case for summoning petitioners as accused in the complaint in question is made out. Questionable conduct of petitioners needs to be properly examined,” the order said, rejecting Gandhis’ argument that there was no illegality in Young India Ltd. (YIL) taking over Associated Journals Ltd. (AJL), the publisher of the now-defunct National Herald newspaper, as per the Companies Act. On June 26, last year, the trial court had issued summons to the Congress leaders on Swamy’s complaint about “cheating” in the acquisition of Associated Journals Ltd. (AJL) by Young India Ltd. (YIL) – “a firm in which both Sonia and Rahul own 38% stake each”. Swamy had claimed that Sonia and Rahul, as majority shareholders of YIL, benefited from the acquisition of AJL. He alleged that AJL had received an interest-free loan of Rs 90.25 crore from the Congress and that the party transferred the debt to YIL for Rs 50 lakh. At the time, AJL, which had Congress leader Motilal Vora as its chairman, claimed it could not repay the loan and agreed to transfer the company and its assets to YIL. Narrating the facts of the case, the high court expressed its displeasure over the involvement of the Congress saying “considering the fact that AJL has sizeable assets of Rs 2,000 crore, it needs to be explained by the petitioners (accused persons) as to what was the need to assign the huge debt of Rs 90 crore when this debt could have been easily liquidated by AJL from its sizeable assets. Even writing off such a huge debt by the Congress party can legitimately attract allegations of cheating, fraud, etc…” Swamy files caveat in SCSubramanian Swamy on Monday filed a caveat in the Supreme Court to pre-empt any ex-parte order on appeals likely to be filed by Sonia Gandhi and Rahul in the National Herald case. “I have filed a caveat in the Supreme Court that in case they file any petition, it should not be heard and no order be passed without giving me an opportunity or without hearing me,” he said.