The Delhi High Court has clarified that there isn’t a keep of investigation in an alleged dishonest case in opposition to SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh regarding the switch of shares of the airline to sure people.
The clarification got here on an order handed by Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta on Singh’s anticipatory bail software within the matter.
The courtroom, which had earlier granted interim safety from arrest to the businessman acknowledged in its order dated September 8, “As prayed by learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, it is clarified that there is no stay of investigation.” The courtroom listed the matter for additional listening to on November 29 and stated the interim order shall proceed to stay in operation within the meantime.
“List on November 29, 2022. Interim orders to continue,” it stated.
In the current case, which pertains to 2 comparable FIRs, a Delhi businessman and his relations have alleged that there was a share-purchase settlement between him and the accused they usually paid Rs 10 lakh for 10 lakh shares of SpiceJet.
These shares, nevertheless, weren’t transferred resulting in the submitting of the police criticism in opposition to Singh.
The complainant has additionally claimed that the accused “dishonestly” handed over outdated and invalid DIS (supply instruction slip) to him.
On April 7, the courtroom had ordered that no coercive motion shall be taken in opposition to Ajay Singh whereas directing him to hitch the investigation and preserve the disputed shares secured and provides an enterprise on this regard to the investigating company.
The courtroom had opined that the dispute between the events gave the impression to be of a civil nature and it “cannot be ignored that the petitioner is a Chairman and Managing Director of SpiceJet Airlines and has deep social roots in the society”.
Seeking anticipatory bail, Singh – represented by senior advocates Vikas Pahwa and Siddharth Aggarwal — has submitted that ex-facie no offence was made out in opposition to him and the legal case was an abuse of the legal equipment.
(This story has not been edited by NDTV workers and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)