New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday issued
notice to Vedanta Aluminum on a petition filed by Maytas
Infra alleging that bank guarantees of Rs.46 crore had been
encashed by the former after termination of the contract.
The notice was issued on the petition which challenged
the order of Andhra Pradesh High Court quashing criminal
proceedings against the Anil Aggarwal group-promoted firm.
A bench comprising Justice H S Bedi and Justice J M
Panchal issued the notice to Vedanta Aluminum and its seven
officials on the petition which alleged that the firm has
committed an offence by encashing bank guarantees given by it
for the Rs 232 crore contract for construction of a township
for its Orissa project.
The High Court had on November 18, 2009 quashed an
FIR registered by Maytas against Vedanta and its officials at
Panjagutta Police Station of Hyderabad.
According to Maytas, after signing the agreement, it
was to complete the entire project in two stages in 18 months
by September, 2009. As per the terms and conditions, it handed
over two bank guarantee of Rs 23 crore each to Vedanta group
However, on January 7, 2009, the scam in Satyam
Computers, its parent firm, broke out.
"Sensing that the complainant (Maytas) could be in a
delicate situation, accused (Vedanta) with dishonest and
criminal intention, January 12, 2009 wrote complaining
about imaginary delays on the part of Maytas," said Maytas,
earlier promoted by kins of Satyam founder B Ramalinga Raju.
Later, Vedanta Aluminum terminated the contract on
grounds of delay and encashed the bank guarantees.
It further submitted that there was no delay from
Maytas on completion of the project and "the accused (Vedanta)
however, with the criminal intent to dishonestly enjoy
wrongful gains encashed the bank guarantees and have thereby
inter alia committed an offence of criminal breach of trust".
Maytas submitted that the Vedanta handed over the
final revised drawings and master plan of the project only
in September, 2008 and as per the terms, the first phase was
to be completed only by September, 2009.
It said the investigation was erroneously stayed by
the High Court and without investigation or enquiry the
criminal complaint filed by the petitioner was illegally
quashed," said Maytas.