Summoning Samsung chief extreme step, to hurt investment: Sharma

April 04, 2014 05:17 pm | Updated November 16, 2021 07:29 pm IST - New Delhi

A file picture of Union Commerce and Indsutries Minister Anand Sharma. Photo: Sushil Kumar Verma.

A file picture of Union Commerce and Indsutries Minister Anand Sharma. Photo: Sushil Kumar Verma.

Describing Supreme Court’s direction asking Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Kun-hee to appear before a Ghaziabad court in a >cheating case an “extreme step”, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma on Friday said it would adversely impact investment and business climate.

“Samsung is one of the largest companies of Korea and it has huge presence and investments in India...it sends a very negative message and will definitely adversely impact the investment and business climate.

“But the courts have to take a view. I feel that such extreme steps will send shockwaves amongst the corporate world. That should be avoided. The concerned authorities need to be very careful and exercise caution,” he said.

Earlier in the week, Supreme Court had directed Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Kun-hee to appear before a Ghaziabad court in a $1.4 million cheating case filed against him.

Mr. Sharma said companies function in an executive hierarchical manner and their chairmen should not be summoned in case of complaints. “This is my view...it sends a very negative message,” he added.

Meanwhile, B D Park, Managing Director, Samsung India and and CEO of company’s south-west Asia operations, met DIPP Secretary Amitabh Kant. He was accompanied by Samsung India Deputy Managing Director Ravinder Zutshi.

A Supreme Court bench had passed the order on an appeal filed by Mr. Lee challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order dismissing his plea for setting aside arrest warrant issued against him.

The order was passed on a complaint filed by an Indian company, JCE Consultancy, against Mr. Lee in the Ghaziabad court for allegedly cheating it of $1.4 million.

Mr. Lee had then approached the high court and the Supreme Court for quashing of FIR against him but his plea was rejected by both the courts earlier.

The trial court, thereafter, issued arrest warrant against him for not appearing before it in the case.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.