Ravi Prakash case: HC adjourns matter to June 18

By Author  |  Legal Correspondent  |  Published: 12th Jun 2019  1:56 am

Hyderabad: Justice G Sri Devi of the Telangana High Court on Monday, heard the arguments in the forgery case registered against Ravi Prakash, ex-CEO of TV9 inconclusively. The Director of Alanda Media, who had reportedly bought 90% of the shares of ABCL, alleged that the petitioner had used forged documents for wrongful gain in a matter relating to the appointment of directors of the company. Counsel for the Telangana Police, Harin Raval, argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary so as to receive all necessary evidence. He contended that the accused had failed to cooperate with the police and had made attempts to control witnesses. The judge considered various documents submitted by the police in support of their claims. Counsel for the petitioner Diljit Singh Ahluwalia questioned the police with regards to their failure to invoke the arbitration clause in the share purchase agreement in what they contended was a purely commercial dispute between the parties. He submitted that the police should not use its might to mock the liberty of an individual and unnecessarily engineer criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Further, he argued that the authorities had themselves agreed that there existed a reasonable apprehension of arrest and urged the court to grant the petitioner anticipatory bail. The matter was adjourned to June 18 for further hearing.

Directive to HC registry

A two-judge Bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan and Dr Justice Shameem Akhter on Tuesday, directed the High Court Registry to club and part all matters for planned acquisition relating to the irrigation projects undertaken by the government. It may be recalled that during the summer vacation, a bench presided over by the Acting Chief Justice cleared the debt for the Mallana Sagar project and all other projects. The Additional Advocate General Ramchandra Rao moved an urgent petition before the court complaining that contrary to the said order, cases spilt over to other courts. The bench pointedly told the Additional Advocate General that they may receive matters which were not included in the earlier list submitted by the government to the court. The bench then proceeded to direct the Registry to list all the matters of land acquisition and rehabilitation before the division bench.