The complaint alleges that the company had set up a world class Uplinking Head-end in the Sky Services platform by investing over Rs 100 crore
The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the ongoing investigation against senior functionaries of Star India, who run Star TV, including its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Uday Shankar and others, in a case of cheating and forgery.
In the complaint, Noida Software Technology Park Limited, through its chairman Ankur Jain, has alleged that Star India denied them an Interconnect Agreement on frivolous grounds with malafide intent.
The complaint alleges that the company had set up a world class Uplinking Head-end in the Sky Services (HITS) platform by investing over Rs 100 crore. In March 2012, the complainant company contacted the broadcasters for the purpose of negotiation and execution of an Interconnect Agreement.
It was further alleged that Star India functionaries held several meetings with the complainant company but did not have the intent to give them the agreement. They also claimed that the petitioners had deliberately led them to believe their bonafide intent to enter into sustainable contracts.
Taking up the petition filed by the senior management of Star India seeking to quash the FIR, Justice IS Mehta observed that since the FIR had been registered in the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police on the directions of the trial court, notices would have to be issued to the police and Noida Software Technology Park Limited, a satellite communication company.
The judge, however, ordered that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioners, directing the police to file a status report in the case by October 24, the next date of hearing. The court also directed the complainant to file its response on the petition within four weeks.
Uday Shankar, along with the Managing Director of the company Sanjay Kumar Gupta and other senior functionaries of the company, had filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered against them on the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Appearing for one of the petitioners, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi contended that the dispute between the parties was civil and commercial in nature and the trial court had wrongly passed an order for registration of an FIR.
Senior counsel Arvind K Nigam, who was representing the complainant, submitted that the MM had directed the registration of an FIR and that the complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC was still pending. He said if at all any other inquiry or fresh material for another case emerges, it would be merged with the complaint case under Section 210 of CrPC.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Delhi High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}