NEW DELHI, Oct 12: The Government owned Airports Authority of India (AAI) has sought issuing of proclamation under section 82 Cr PC against accused UB Group Chairman Vijay Mallya from a Mumbai court in connection with two cases of cheque bouncing under section 138 NI Act, filed by Airport Authority of India in the Court of MM, Andheri Court, Mumbai for over Rs 100 crore.
According to Airport operator AAI ‘s lawyer Anil Kathuria and Neeraj Aarora which operates about 125 airports in the country in a statement said the application were filed against Vijay Maalya’s Kingfisher Airlines Ltd and others as the bounced cheques involved a total amount of Rs 100 crore.
Earlier the court hearing the cheque bounce cases against promoter of defunct Kingfisher Airlines, Vijay Mallya had been directed to appear before it on 16th July, 2016 failing which it will issue a warrant against him.
The court had issued Non Bailable Warrants against Vijay Mallya for non appearance on court hearing on 16th July, 2016. The NBW issued were not executed on account of remark “received back unexecuted as the accused is not residing at the address mentioned in the warrant and it was further reported to have fled to United Kingdom.”
The two applications filed earlier by AAI sought cancellation of permanent exemption from court appearance granted to Mallya, who has since left the country amid an outcry over his airline defaulting on repayment of over Rs 9,000 crore to the banks and over Rs. 250 crores of AAI dues, sought an arrest warrant against him.
AAI’s lawyers Anil Kathuria and Neeraj Aarora had argued in the court that in view of non execution of the Non Bailable Warrants steps needed to be taken for issuance of proclamation against the accused Vijay Mallya who is reported to have been declared as proclaimed offender by Prevention of Money Laundering Act, (PMLA) Court.
It was further argued that the cases of the AAI cannot be kept pending indefinitely on account of non appearance of Vija Mallya, one of the accused who could not put the court to ransom by non appearance and jeopardise the whole process of law.
Further the lawyer for AAI added that the accused person whosoever fails to appear at the specified place and he specified tim as required by a proclamation published under sub section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment fro a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both in terms of the newly inserted section 174A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2005. (UNI)
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel