Thread by @barandbench

#NationalHerald:

Court of ACMM Vishal Pahuja assembles for cross-examination of Subramanian Swamy.

Swamy will be cross-examined by Senior Advocate RS Cheema who appears for Rahul and Sonia Gandhi.

@NH_India @Swamy39 @RahulGandhi

Swamy gives a brief overview of the National Herald case.

#NationalHerald

Before Judge Vishal Pahuja, Judge Samar Vishal was the presiding officer.

Today is the first time that the case is being taken up by Judge Pahuja.

Swamy informs the Court about the litigation pertaining to the eviction of Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) from Herald House.

@Swamy39

Cross-examination begins.

Cheema: Can you prouduce a copy of the complaint upon which IT proceedings were initiated ?

Swamy: I don't have the copy at this moment. I shall produce it on the next date of hearing.

@Swamy39

Cheema: Apart from the Dec 27, 2017 IT order, which records a finding of flow of Rs 60 lakh per month into the accounts of Young Indian (YI), can you produce any evidence to establish that even a single penny by way of payment from AJL ever took place?

@Swamy39 : I have no documents to show how much rent was received by YI as i have no concern with the same in this case.

Cheema: Are you not standing by this allegation..?

@Swamy39 : I stand by the allegation.

Cheema: When did you file the complaint before the Income-tax dept?

@Swamy39 : In 2014.

Cheema: I put it to you, when you filed the present complaint, you had no evidence with respect to Rs 60 lakh rent coming to YI every month?

@swamy: Herald House was rented out to External Affairs Ministry, I asked the Ministry as to whether any rent was being paid for the same and i was informed that rent was being paid. I had not examined whether any amount travelled to YI as I considerer AJL and YI to be the same.

Cheema: At no stage, you had any evidence to prove the coming of rental income of AJL to YI?
@swamy: I did not procure any original evidence as it was no relevant to my case.

Cheema: Is it correct that your averment in the compliant with regards the transfer of AJL's rental income to YI is not factually correct as you neither examined the facts nor you had any evidence to sustain the allegation?

@swamy: It is denied. I have answered earlier that i consider YI and AJL to be the same in terms of decision making.

Cheema refers to pre-summoning evidence and asks:
In your deposition dated 23.06.2014, you have deposed ..'also directors are deriving all the benefits as directors of a pvt ltd cos which is not carrying on any business/commercial activity and has authorized capital of 5 lakh..

..Thus all benefits derived by accused have in effect originated from the assets of AJL..'

Hence, in your deposition you are levelling specific allegations of personal payment of rent, benefits etc to the director of YI as a result of transfer of income legitimately accruing to AJL.

@Swamy39 : I deny levelling allegations of personal payment of rent and benefits to directors of YI.

It is incorrect to suggest that I am making palpably and patently false statement today to the effect that I have never avered and alleged that directors of YI derived personally any rent, benefits from the income or assets of AJL, @Swamy39

It is also incorrect that i levelled such allegations in the complaint and my deposition and i am now taking a contrary stand because such allegations were false to my knowledge and without any evidence: @Swamy39

It is incorrect that I procured the summoning order by making false allegations in this regard : @Swamy39

Cheema: YI is a cos which to your knowledge was incorporated under sec 25 of Companies Act,1956 ?

@Swamy39 : Yes, it is correct.

Cheema: Are you aware that as per sec 25, Directors of such cos have no entitlement to any divided or profits accruing to these cos. The same have to be spent exclusively for promoting the objects of the cos?

@Swamy39 : Yes, i am aware.

Cheema: You have not referred to YI as being a sec 25 cos in your entire case till now?

@Swamy39 after going through his earlier statements before court:

I have not stated the aforementioned fact. I did not consider it material.

I had already mentioned it in my complaint.

It is incorrect to state that i maintained silence on the nature of YI as it militates against the allegation of criminal misappropriation: @Swamy39

It is incorrect to state that I intentionally described YI as privately owned cos instead of giving its true nature: @Swamy39

Cheema refers to earlier statement by @Swamy39 that he had relied on IT investigation to support his claim. Will you please inform in what manner you are privy to the investigation ?

@Swamy39 : I wrote a letter to the then FinMin who passed it on to Dept of Revenue and IT.

@Swamy39: I did not participate in the investigation not was I privy to the investigation by IT.

@Swamy39 : The complaint by me with the IT is the same letter that was written to the FinMin.

Cheema: but your statement said that you relied on the IT investigation to support your claim.

@Swamy39 : I deny that I wrongly stated. I relied on the IT assessment order served on the accused which I obtained under sec 138 of Income Tax Act.

Cheema: You were to bring the copy of the complaint to Min of Housing & Urban Development.

@Swamy39 : I have not brought the complaint today. I shall bring it to Court on the next date of hearing.

Further cross examination is deferred for want of two documents ie. the complaint filed with the Ministry of Urban Development and IT Dept.

Cheema seeks advance copy of the complaint.

@Swamy39 : You will get it by 5 pm tomorrow. Where do i deliver it? Party office?

Matter to be taken up next on March 21.

National Herald: No allegations of personal payment of benefits to Young Indian Directors, Subramanian Swamy
@NationalHerald @Swamy39
barandbench.com/news/litigatio…