Wipro Chairman – India Legal https://www.indialegallive.com Your legal news destination! Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:08:16 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.4 https://d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net/IL/uploads/2020/12/16123527/cropped-IL_Logo-1-32x32.jpg Wipro Chairman – India Legal https://www.indialegallive.com 32 32 183211854 No Relief To Wipro’s Chairman From Karnataka HC https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/no-relief-to-wipros-chairman-from-karnataka-hc/ Mon, 18 May 2020 09:39:53 +0000 http://www.indialegallive.com/?p=99771 Azim PremjiThe High Court of Karnataka has dismissed the petitions filed by Azim Premji, the Founder of Wipro, his wife and two others against the summons issued by an Additional City Civil and Sessions Court over the complaint filed by a Private company.]]> Azim Premji

The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed the petitions filed by Azim Premji, the Founder of Wipro, his wife and two others against the summons issued by an Additional City Civil and Sessions Court over the complaint filed by a Private company.

A single-judge Bench of Justice John Michael Cunha dismissed the petition filed by Premji, his wife, Pagalthivarthi Srinivasan and Regional Director of Ministry of Corporate Affairs M R Bhat, challenging the summons issued in January by Additional City Civil and Sessions Court with regard to a complaint filed against by a private company India Awake for Transparency which is based in Chennai.

The allegations involved in the complaint which was filed by the private company against the four were regarding illegal transfer of crores of rupees worth of assets from three companies into a private trust and newly formed company.

It was alleged in the complaint that Premji, his wife and Srinivasan were entrusted with the dominion over properties and assets of three companies as directors and held assets of these three companies of a total worth Rs 31,342 crore in fiduciary capacity, without having any financial interest or ownership therein.

The act, according to the complaint, constituted an offence under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC and Section 13(1) (d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial Court had based on this complaint issued summons to the accused, who challenged it before Karnataka High Court.

The Counsel on behalf of Premji and the other accused contended that the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offences. No case can be made out on the basis of these allegations even if they are accepted in their entirety and taken at their face value.

-India Legal Bureau

]]>
99771