A high-profile rivalry between a hotel magnate and his son took a drastic turn when the Bombay high court ruled that the latter will have to face a criminal trial for threatening to kill his father.
A high-profile rivalry between a hotel magnate and his son took a drastic turn when the Bombay high court ruled that the latter will have to face a criminal trial for threatening to kill his father.
The ruling came after the court rejected hotelier Ramesh Narang’s plea to quash a first information report (FIR) against him by his father Rama Narang. Ramesh is joint managing director of the Rs1,000-crore Narang International Hotels Private Limited (owners of Ambassador Hotel chain), while his father is the chairman and managing director. Justice JH Bhatia on March 21 rejected Ramesh’s application to quash the March 11, 2009, FIR lodged at the Sahar police station under sections 323 (voluntary causing hurt), 380 (theft) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Additional public prosecutor PS Hingorani submitted that though the investigation is complete, the chargesheet was not filed as the police were awaiting the outcome of this application, which has been pending since two years. While rejecting Ramesh’s application, justice Bhatia directed the trial court to decide Ramesh’s application for discharge after the chargesheet is filed.
The Narangs live in their company’s residential building at Pali Hill, Bandra. Ramesh resides on the second floor while Rama stays on the first floor. Rama’s FIR alleged that at 12.30pm on March 9, 2009, while he was going to the ground floor to performing pooja, he noticed Ramesh taking away some doors, furniture and articles in a vehicle. “As per the report, when he objected, the accused threatened him,” the judge noted.
Ramesh’s advocate Akhil Sibal argued that the personal properties being removed belonged to the company, not Rama, and were being shifted to Ambassador Sky Chef, Sahar, which are also the company’s premises.
Rama’s counsel Shirish Gupte countered that Ramesh has no legal right to remove the movable properties of the company and his defence may be considered during the trial.
){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}
){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}