Supreme Court Seeks Azim Premji's Response To Settlement Proposal Of NGO 'India Awake For Transparency'

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court suggested a settlement be reached between Azim Premji and the NGO India Awake Transparency which is facing contempt proceedings for filing multiple frivolous complaints against the ex-Chairman of Wipro.The Court was considering a special leave petition filed by Azim Premji and his wife Yaseem Azim Premji challenging a criminal complaint filed by the NGO. The Court had earlier stayed the criminal proceedings initiated by the NGO. On the earlier occasion, the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh observed that the NGO had initiated numerous ancillary proceedings to obfuscate the contempt proceedings before the Karnataka High Court. In view of the same, the Court had issued directions to the High Court for faster disposal of the Contempt Case. At the outset Senior Advocate, Mr. S. Ganesh appearing on behalf of Azim Premji apprised the Court that pursuant to its last days' order, the High Court had heard the contempt matter and reserved judgment in the same. "Pursuant to the detailed directions given by my lord on the last occasion, the criminal petition has been fully heard and judgment has been reserved by the Karnataka High Court." He further added that a subsequent development has taken place, whereby the Counsel for the Respondents, Mr. R. Subramanian has been charged by a trial court in Bangalore under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment with fine of Rs. 62 crore. "A subsequent development that has taken place, Mr. R. Subramanian who appears for the Respondent from the other side of the offence under S. 138 for dishonour of dishonoured cheques given to us, the trial court in Bangalore sentenced him to 2 years imprisonment and imposed a fine of 62 crore." Mr. Subramanian asked Mr. Ganesh, "How does that have any relevance with the current petition?" The Bench responded stating, "All this is relevant in the manner you have taken the proceedings." Mr. Ganesh informed the Court that as directed by the Court, both the parties have filed synopsis. Interestingly, in the synopsis filed by the Respondent, they have made an admission that goes to the very root of the matter. "We come back to our criminal appeal. We have filed a 2 page synopsis each. In his synopsis he has made a very important admission, which I submit goes to the root of the whole case and as a result of which I would be in a position to complete my entire argument in just 10-15 min." Reminding the Counsel that the matter was listed for direction and not for hearing, the Bench stated - "Let us see what the directions are. As far as the criminal contempt is concerned the order stands reserved." Thereafter, the Bench recorded the submissions made by Mr. Ganesh - "We are informed by learned counsel for appellant the hearing in the criminal contempt case stands concluded and judgment stands reserved. It is his further submission that he would like to point out to the Court that the Counsel for respondent stands convicted for a cheque bouncing case which has been placed on record by I.A…sentencing him to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of 62 crores. It is his plea that it is the cheque bouncing case that has given rise to a vendetta…a position naturally disputed by the Counsel appearing for the respondent." Mr. Ganesh added - "I want to point out that in the synopsis he has made a candid admission." The Bench opined, "Next day when we hear the matter, we will listen to the candid admission." The Bench further recorded - "Ld. Counsel also submits that synopsis have been filed by both the sides and he will take even less time than specified on last date as he perceives that there are some admission in the synopsis. That is to be considered at the stage of hearing". Advocate, Dr. R. Prakash appearing for M.R. Bhat submitted that as per the direction of the Supreme Court he has filed an application for direction seeking pensionary benefits, which were withheld by the Government of India, due to the pendency of the present proceedings. "In the last hearing, your lordship asked me to file an application for direction. The pensionary benefits are withheld because of the pendency of this case." The Bench directed the Government of India to remit the requisite amount without subjecting the same to the pendency of the present matter. On the request of the Counsel, the Bench further recorded that the pendency of the present proceedings would not act as an impediment in the post retirement opportunities of Mr. Bhat. "Ld. Counsel in…(one of the appeals) submits that he had moved an I.A….in view of what has transpired on the last date. The conspectus of his application is limited. It is related to the gratuity amount payable to the applicant along with commutation of pension. The applicant has retired from the post of Regional Director…. and...

Supreme Court Seeks Azim Premji's Response To Settlement Proposal Of NGO 'India Awake For Transparency'

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags