The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to Vedanta Aluminum on a petition filed by Maytas Infra alleging that bank guarantees of Rs.46 crore had been encashed by the former after termination of the contract.
The notice was issued on the petition which challenged the order of Andhra Pradesh High Court quashing criminal proceedings against the Anil Aggarwal group-promoted firm.
A bench comprising Justice H.S. Bedi and Justice J.M. Panchal issued the notice to Vedanta Aluminum and its seven officials on the petition which alleged that the firm has committed an offence by encashing bank guarantees given by it for the Rs 232 crore contract for construction of a township for its Orissa project.
The High Court had on November 18, 2009 quashed an FIR registered by Maytas against Vedanta and its officials at Panjagutta Police Station of Hyderabad.
According to Maytas, after signing the agreement, it was to complete the entire project in two stages in 18 months by September, 2009. As per the terms and conditions, it handed over two bank guarantee of Rs 23 crore each to Vedanta group firm.
However, on January 7, 2009, the scam in Satyam Computers, its parent firm, broke out.
“Sensing that the complainant (Maytas) could be in a delicate situation, accused (Vedanta) with dishonest and criminal intention, January 12, 2009 wrote complaining about imaginary delays on the part of Maytas,” said Maytas, earlier promoted by kin of Satyam founder B. Ramalinga Raju.
Later, Vedanta Aluminum terminated the contract on grounds of delay and encashed the bank guarantees.
It further submitted that there was no delay from Maytas on completion of the project and “the accused (Vedanta) however, with the criminal intent to dishonestly enjoy wrongful gains encashed the bank guarantees and have thereby inter alia committed an offence of criminal breach of trust“.
Maytas submitted that the Vedanta handed over the final revised drawings and master plan of the project only in September, 2008 and as per the terms, the first phase was to be completed only by September, 2009.
It said the investigation was erroneously stayed by the High Court and without investigation or enquiry the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner was illegally quashed,” said Maytas.