‘I was a minor at the time of the land deal…’, with what arguments did the court reject Tejashwi Yadav’s theory – irctc scam Tejashwi Prasad Yadav plea minor hotel tender irregularities ntcppl

Tejashwi Yadav said in the IRCTC scam that he was a minor on the date the land in question was purchased and the day the tender was allotted. Therefore, they should not be treated like adults in the eyes of law. Former Deputy CM of Bihar Tejashwi Yadav is facing charges in the IRCTC scam along with his father Lalu Yadav and mother Rabri Devi. On Monday, Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court declared Lalu-Rabri and them accused in this case.

Special Judge Vishal Gogane Tejashwi Yadav Considered the contention of M/s Sujatha Hotel that he was a minor when the land was purchased by M/s DMCPL on 5th February, 2005 and when the tenders were given to M/s Sujatha Hotel on 27th December, 2006. Therefore he does not have the legal capacity to be tried as an adult.

But the court rejected Tejashwi’s appeal. On this appeal of Tejashwi, the court said that, “It is no defense to Tejashwi that he was a minor on the dates of sale of shares of M/s DMCPL. Therefore, his age as a minor at the time of land sale in the year 2005 cannot be construed to create any legal hurdle for trying him as an adult for transactions relating to shares after 2010.”

The court said that the transfer of these shares by M/s DMCPL was the end result of this transaction, which had started with the purchase of land parcels by this company from the Kochhar brothers and which had caused loss to the government exchequer.

The court said, “The entire transaction of this land from 2005 to 2014 and the resulting impact make it seriously suspicious.”

“The effect of this possibly dishonest transfer of land was that Rabri Devi and Tejashwi Prasad Yadav gained effective control over it,” the court said.

Judge Gogane said, “The court has prima facie concluded that the manner in which the shares of M/s DMCPL were transferred to Rabri Devi and Tejashwi Prasad Yadav at a low price gives rise to suspicion.”

He stressed that any private transaction involving manipulation and misleading returns, especially where the consideration received is much below market standards, is a “dishonest and fraudulent act” as it has caused loss to the exchequer.

Let us tell you that Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi has decided in this case. Lalu YadavOrdered to register a case against Rabri Devi and Tejashwi Yadav under section 420 of IPC and Anti-Corruption Act.

—- End —-

Leave a Comment