In a case connected to a CBI court trial in Ranchi for suspected fraud against Ranchi Expressway Ltd, a subsidiary of Madhucon Group, the BRS MP requested the quashing of the ED proceedings.
Hyderabad: On Friday, Telangana High Court Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued a stay on Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings and the attachment of Khammam MP Nama Nageswar Rao’s properties. In a case connected to a CBI court trial in Ranchi for suspected fraud against Ranchi Expressway Ltd, a subsidiary of Madhucon Group, the BRS MP requested the quashing of the ED proceedings. The Ranchi company is accused of abusing bank loans totaling Rs 360 crore.
E Venkata Siddarth, the attorney for the MP, asserted that the petitioner was not a party to the predicate offence. He said that the petitioner has no connection to the Madhucon Group or Ranchi Expressway Limited. He claimed that neither he was the Director nor an employee of the aforementioned businesses. He said that the petitioner’s name was not included in the chargesheet submitted by the CBI, Ranchi, or in the ED probe. In court appearance on behalf of the ED, the Assistant Solicitor General for the South Zone raised a protest against the stay. However, the Chief Justice issued a temporary injunction halting the ED’s investigation against the MP.
Attorney B. Balamukund Rao was given a directive by the division bench, which was made up of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji, to offer an unequivocal apology or risk being punished for contempt of court. A suo motu contempt action had been brought before the court based on Rao’s legal notice to Justice P Madhavi Devi of the High Court. His notice demanded that the judge provide justification within seven days as to why no action should be taken against her, claiming that he had not been given a fair opportunity to argue the case. The advocate is accused of acting in a disorderly way, yelling at other attorneys in the courtroom, and giving the judge notice in the contempt case.Another claim is that Rao got into an altercation with Justice Madhavi Devi and left the courtroom during the hearing of a case he filed against the judge’s advice about the Tourism department. The attorney didn’t express regret or acknowledge that what they had done had diminished the majesty of the High Court, the bench said.
The Advocate General informed the court of the suo motu contempt that had previously been imposed against him by another division bench as well as the contempt action that the advocate had initiated against a former high court judge. The bench informed him that his conduct may result in criminal contempt. It also prompted him to reflect on his 40 years working in the bar. The case was postponed until February 17 after the judge advised him to reconsider the situation and extend an unqualified apology.
