Telangana High Court stays ED move to attach BRS MP’s assets
The BRS MP sought quashing of the ED proceedings in a case linked to a CBI court trial in Ranchi for alleged fraud against Ranchi Expressway Ltd, a subsidiary of Madhucon Group.
Hyderabad: Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Telangana High Court on Friday granted a stay on Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings and attachment of assets of Khammam MP Nama Nageswar Rao. The BRS MP sought quashing of the ED proceedings in a case linked to a CBI court trial in Ranchi for alleged fraud against Ranchi Expressway Ltd, a subsidiary of Madhucon Group. The Ranchi firm is facing allegations of misusing Rs 360 crore of bank loans.
MP’s counsel E Venkata Siddarth submitted that the petitioner was not an accused in the predicate offence. He further said that the petitioner was in no way concerned with Ranchi Expressway Limited and Madhucon Group companies. Neither was he the Director nor employee of the said firms, he said. Moreover, in the chargesheet, filed by CBI, Ranchi, and in the ED investigation, the name of the petitioner was not reflected, he said. The Assistant Solicitor General, South Zone, appearing on behalf of the ED, raised an objection against the stay. However, the Chief Justice granted interim order staying the ED proceedings against the MP.
Also Read
Advocate asked to apologise
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N Tukaramji directed advocate B Balamukund Rao to render unconditional apology or face punishment for contempt of court. The court was dealing with a suo motu contempt case taken up based on the legal notice issued by Rao to High Court judge Justice P Madhavi Devi. Alleging that he was not given a fair opportunity to represent the case, his notice called upon the judge to show cause within seven days, why action should not be initiated against her. In the contempt case, the advocate is facing charges of behaving in an unruly manner, screaming at other advocates in the court hall and issuing notice to the judge. Another allegation is that while Justice Madhavi Devi was hearing a matter pertaining to the Tourism department filed by Rao, against the judge’s suggestion, Rao picked up an argument with the Judge and walked out of the court hall. The bench observed that the advocate was neither apologetic nor realised having lowered the majesty of the High Court.
The Advocate General brought to the notice of the court the suo motu contempt issued against him by another division bench on an earlier occasion and the contempt case filed by the advocate against a former high court judge. The bench warned that his actions attracted criminal contempt. It also asked him to think about his 40 years’ experience at the Bar. The bench suggested he think over the issue again and render an unconditional apology and adjourned the case to February 17.
