EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, May 20: Following a request for urgent hearing amidst restricted functioning of Courts due to COVID guidelines, the Patiala House Court Delhi today took up the defamation suit against ex-MLC Vikram Randhawa and fixed the next hearing of the case on May 29.
The two Legal Suits filed against Randhawa include a Criminal Suit for defamation under Indian Penal Code and a Civil Suit of Rs 1 crore for damages.
Appearing before Additional District Judge R L Meena, the Delhi based Advocate Jeevesh Nagrath, assisted by a panel of Advocates comprising Narendra Mann, Chandan Dutta and Manoj Pant, presented the case on behalf of their client Dr Jitendra Singh, Union Minister of State in PMO. The Court was also requested for early disposal of the case.
The advocates led by Jeevesh Nagrath refused to divulge any more details saying that the matter is subjudice, under the consideration of Court.
Normally, in such cases, others also, including the media reports are expected not to repeat or reproduce unproven allegations against the petitioner because that is liable to invite displeasure of the court, the case being sub-judice.
Vikram Randhawa had in a press conference on May 3, made certain unsubstantiated allegations against several political and official functionaries without providing any proof or evidence for the same. Within a few hours, the Parliamentary Incharge of Udhampur-Kathua-Doda Lok Sabha Constituency, Sanjeev Sharma had demanded an apology from Randhawa or present evidence of what he had said. With no response coming forth, a Legal Notice was then served by the Delhi based lawyers hired by Dr Jitendra Singh, in which it was clearly mentioned that Randhawa should, within 24 hours, hold a press conference exclusively to tender his apology for the allegations made without evidence.
Subsequently, with no response received, two Legal Suits, namely a Criminal Complaint and a Civil Suit, were filed in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House District Court, Delhi. It was also made clear that the apology tendered publicly before the media should not be confined only to the language used but should categorically state that the allegations made were false, baseless and without any evidence. |
