The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy, on whose complaint a trial court had recently summoned Congress president Sonia Gandhi, party vice-president Rahul Gandhi and others in a case of alleged cheating and misappropriated of funds.
The matter relates to transfer of assets, worth crores of rupees, of Associated Journal Limited (AJL), publisher of the now defunct English daily National Herald to another company, Young Indian.
Dr. Swamy levelled charges of cheating in the acquisition of the daily by Young Indian, which he said was not involved in any business activity.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ms. Sonia Gandhi, Mr. Rahul Gandhi and Congress treasurer Moti Lal Vora are among the Directors of Young India, which was given about 99 per cent of ordinary shares of AJL.
Dr. Swamy had alleged that the rent generated by properties belonging to AJL was dishonestly misappropriated by the Young India Directors enjoying control over the assets.
Besides Ms. Gandhi, Mr. Rahul Gandhi and Mr. Vora, those summoned by a Metropolitan Magistrate for appearing before him on August 7 are Congress general secretary Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey and National Innovation Council chairman Sam Pitroda.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ms. Gandhi and others have challenged in the Delhi High Court the June 26 order of the trial court issuing summons to them. Justice V. P. Vaish of the High Court, issuing the notice, posted the petitions for hearing on August 5.
When petitioners’ counsel and senior advocate Kapil Sibal sought a stay on proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Justice Vaish said he would pass an order before the case comes up for hearing in the trial court. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also appeared on behalf of the Congress leaders.
Dr. Swamy, who was present in the Court, said during the hearing that he had not been supplied with the copies of the petitions.
The petitioners have sought setting aside of the complaint, saying it was “political motivated.” However, the trial court had observed that the complainant had established a prima facie case against the accused.