Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: MEIL in V Ravi Prakash President Rtv vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 18 March, 2025Matching Fragments
1. In this Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the petitioner, inter alia; is seeking an investigation by CBI or an SIT into the alleged fraud bank guarantees furnished by respondent No.3 - Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd. (MEIL) which has been accepted by respondent No.1 i.e. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). The challenge to the bank guarantees is made on the ground that the same have been issued by the Euro Exim Bank, which is neither a scheduled bank nor a commercial bank, approved by the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the MMRDA to cancel the contract awarded to MEIL. The facts leading to filing of this PIL need mention, which are stated infra.
Basavraj Page|2
32968.24-pil
(I) FACTS:
2. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on 12th May 2023 for construction of a twin tube road tunnel between Thane and Borivali in Mumbai. The MEIL, in the aforesaid RFP, was declared the preferred bidder and on 8th May 2023, a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) was issued to it. The MEIL furnished performance bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.92.67 crores and Rs.88.18 crores, issued by Canara Bank for the project in question. The MEIL has also furnished the performance bank guarantees issued by Euro Exim Bank.
12. It is also urged that in case, this Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner is an inappropriate person to take forward the proceeding of this PIL, this Court must appoint an Amicus to forward this PIL, as it raises a genuine issue. It is submitted that the petitioner has complied with the mandate contained in Rule 5 and 7 of the Rules 2010 framed by this Court.
(IV) REJOINDER REPLY:
13. By way of rejoinder reply, learned Counsel for MEIL submitted that in the reply filed to the preliminary objection, it has not been stated that the petitioner had removed tweets from social media platform. It is contended that the defence of removal of tweets is an after-thought. Learned Solicitor General has pointed out that the tender was issued in which MEIL has been emerged as a highest bidder. It is contended that the MEIL has furnished performance bank guarantees which were issued by Canara Bank i.e. the scheduled bank and the bank guarantees furnished by the Euro Exim Bank have been authenticated by the Bank of Maharashtra and the Bank of India. It is submitted that filing of the instant writ petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, amounts to gross abuse of process of law.
d) Impleadment
Petition has been
filed seeking to
Basavraj Page|19
32968.24-pil
add RTV and the
Petitioner as
and 22 in O.S. No.
510/2022. Notice
has been issued.
The relevant
screenshots are
annexed herewith
as Exhibits A-1
to A-5. The
Answering
Respondent
craves leave of
this Hon'ble Court
to refer to the
relevant videos
when produced.
3 CC No.501/2023 filed The petitioner is not a In the Criminal
by MEIL in II Junior party to the said Complaint, "Toli
Civil Judge cum XIII private complaint. As velugu" is an
MM Court, Kukatpally per the case status accused. As stated
against Tolivelugu & available on e-courts above, "Toli
Gajjala Narsimha the petitioner is not a velugu" is a
Reddy for party to proceedings. product of RTV.
defamation. Hence allegation of
suppression is
unfounded and
baseless since
petitioner has no
relation with the said
matter.
4 Criminal Defamation The petitioner is not a
CC No.501/2023 party to the said
titled MEIL V. criminal defamation -----
Tolivelugu & Gajjala suit. Hence,
Narsimha Reddy filed allegation of
before II Junior Civil suppression is
Judge cum XIII MM unfounded and
Court, Kukatpally. baseless since
petitioner has no
relation with the said
matter.
Basavraj Page|20
32968.24-pil
5 Cyber Complaint MEIL is not a party to Petitioner claims
No.99/2019 under the said proceedings. that MEIL is not a
sec 406 IPC and sec Petitioner is initially party to the said
66D IT Act. not arrayed as proceedings.
accused in the FIR 99 However,
of 2019. Later on, complaint has
the Petitioner was been filed by
arrayed as accused. Associated
The petitioner had Broadcasting Co.
filed quashing vide Ltd. ("ABCL") in
CRLP No.6622 of which the
2019 and Answering
investigation was Respondent has a
stayed by the Hon'ble substantial
High Court and interest as set out
currently the matter in Row 7 below
is coming up for and Exhibit-C of
adjudication. The Interlocutory
Complainant is one T. Application.
Krishna Prasad,
representative of
iVision Media India
Private Limited.
6 ED Proceedings under MEIL is not a party to These proceedings
PMLA qua ECIR the said proceedings. are also initiated
No.17/HYZO of 2020. by ABCL.
The Complainant in
FIR 900 of 2019
(predicate offence) is
Associated
Broadcasting
Company Private
Limited (TV9
Company) and not
MEIL. FIR No.900
has been closed by
the police.
Petitioner's quashing
petition for quashing
of ECIR No.17/HYZO
is currently pending
adjudication.
Basavraj Page|21
32968.24-pil
7 FIR/Crime The petitioner is not FIR was filed by a
No.373/2022 filed by an accused in this FIR Director of
Mr. Ch Pedda and no summons has Answering
Subbaiah been issued to him. Respondent
u/s.505(1)(b)(c), Hence allegation of against "Toli
505(2), 506, 504, suppression is velugu" and the
120B of IPC with PS unfounded and PIL Petitioner.
Balanagar. baseless since
petitioner has no The said FIRs
relation with the said specifically states
matter. that Petitioner is
promoter of "Toli
velugu."
The Answering
Respondent on
24.02.2025
received
knowledge that
the investigating
officer has filed a
closure report.
8 FIR/Crime The petitioner is not PIL Petitioner
No.371/2022 filed by an accused in this FIR again misleads
MEIL and no summons has that he is not
u/s.505(1)(b)(c), been issued to him. aware of this case.
505(2), 506, 504, Hence allegation of
120B of IPC with PS suppression is The said case is
Balanagar. unfounded and filed against "Toli
baseless since Velugu" and PIL
petitioner has no Petitioner, who
relation with the said are Accused Nos.
matter. 1 and 2.
In the said FIR,
Chargesheet was
filed and the
concerned court
had taken
cognizance of the
same.
9 CP No. 310/24/HBD/ MEIL is not party in The PIL Petitioner
2019 before NCLT, the said dispute. mischievously
Hyderabad Hence allegation of claims that there
Basavraj Page|22
32968.24-pil
suppression is is no suppression
unfounded and of this litigation.
baseless since The said Petition
respondent has no was filed in NCLT
relation with the said by the Petitioner
dispute. against Alanda
Media.
Respondent No.3 is
not a party to the Answering
litigation in NCLT or Respondent, holds
NCLAT and is not an through its wholly
owner of Alanda owned subsidiary
Media, therefore, it (MEIL Holdings), a
cannot be said that substantial
the dispute is interest in Alanda
between petitioner Media, wherein
and MEIL. Answering
Respondents
debentures, debt Optionally
instruments, in Convertible
Alanda Media and has Debentures worth
no equity shares. As INR 259 Crores.
such MEIL cannot
claim ownership in
Alanda Media or in
TV9 as both are
corporate entities
especially basing on
the debentures
purchased by them.
Respondent No.3 is
only using it as a
ground to question
maintainability of the
instant petition, since
it has no argument on
merit with regard to
fraud bank
guarantees furnished
by it. Disclosure of
this information has
no legal nexus with
the issue involved in
the instant public
Basavraj Page|23
32968.24-pil
interest litigation and
hence the petitioner
is not duty-bound to
divulge every
litigation he is party
to.
Delhi High Court admits that there
is ongoing
litigation between
MEIL and the
petitioner. In the
said suit, the
answering
Respondent has
sued the PIL
petitioner on the
issuing bank
guarantees from
Euro Exim Bank.
However,
admittedly, does
not disclose the
required details of
the said litigation
in his purported
PIL.