Rajinikanth has nothing to do with loan dispute: Kasthuri Raja

Film director R. Krishnamurthy alias Kasthuri Raja on Thursday contended before the Madras High Court that his son’s father-in-law and actor Rajinikanth had nothing to do with a loan taken by him from the late financier S. Mukunchand Bothra.

The submission was made during the hearing of a civil appeal preferred by Gagan Bothra, son of Mukunchand Bothra, seeking a direction to Mr. Rajinikanth to take action against Mr. Raja for having supposedly misused the actor’s name for taking the loan or to conclude that there was collusion between them. Justice N. Sathish Kumar had dismissed the financier’s 2015 civil suit on July 24, 2018.

When the appeal was listed before Justices N. Kirubakaran and P.D. Audikesavalu, the director’s counsel Haja Mohideen Gisthi said his client borrowed ₹10 lakh from the deceased in 2012 after signing on some blank papers. Although the loan was repaid, the signed papers were not returned to him. The financier had filled the blank papers, stating as if the director had borrowed ₹65 lakh with an assurance that Mr. Rajinikanth would settle the amount in case of a default.

The counsel pointed out that Mr. Gagan Bothra had agreed in the parallel criminal proceedings that it was his father’s handwriting on the promisory note.

On the other hand, Mr. Bothra contended that ₹65 lakh was paid in two tranches of ₹40 lakh and ₹25 lakh in cash but the money was never repaid. Wondering how such a huge amount could be paid in cash, the judges said the appellant must be ready to produce his income tax returns for the relevant year.

Later, when they asked Mr. Gisthi if there was any possibility of settling the matter between the parties since it was hard to believe that a popular film director would have obtained a small amount of ₹10 lakh as loan and would not have taken back signed blank papers, the counsel said that there was no possibility of settlement since the financier had defamed the director and his son’s father-in-law in the media.

The court was told that the financier had given interviews to television channels defaming the director and the actor and he was in the habit of circulating false messages on social media.

The judges posted the case to March 4.

This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Apr 11, 2021 12:23:17 PM |

Next Story