In a setback to actress Preity Zinta, the Bombay High Court refused to quash proceedings against her in a cheque bounce case filed by scriptwriter Abbas Tyrewala in a magistrate’s court, asking her to face trial.
Justice Sadhana Jadhav, hearing Zinta’s plea, held that high court would not quash the case and asked the actress to produce in the lower court whatever material she had.
The Judge was of the view that at this stage the proceedings cannot be dismissed in the lower court and Zinta should plead her case only before the concerned magistrate.
- Twitter War Between Congress Leader Amarinder Singh & Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal
- Life Of Actor-Dancer Ashwini Ekbote Who Died During A Performance
- Idea Exchange With Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
- PM Narendra Modi Bats For Equal Rights : Here What He Said On Triple Talaq
- Uncle Shivpal Targets Akhilesh, Claims CM Told Him He Will Form Another Party
- Pakistan Continues To Violate Ceasefire In RS Pura
- Samajwadi Party’s internal fight divides SP
- Cyrus Mistry Removed As Chairman of Tata Sons: Here’s What Happened
- Wreath Laying Ceremony Of Slain Soldier Sushil Kumar Observed
- Virat Kohli Powers India Home With Unbeaten 154
- Pakistan Resorts To Heavy Mortar Shelling, 1 BSF Jawan Dead, 3 Injured
- Bigg Boss 10 Weekend Ka Vaar: Priyanka Jagga Evicted
- Here’s How Much Army Welfare Fund Has After MNS Demanded Rs 5 Cr To Cast Pak Artistes
- Shiv Sena Chief Uddhav Thackeray Take A Jibe At MNS: Here’s What He Said
- Samajwadi Party Crisis Deepens: Here’s How It Will Impact UP Polls
Tyrewala, who wrote the script for Zinta’s film ‘Ishkq In Paris’, has filed a complaint with a magistrate saying that a remuneration cheque of Rs 18.9 lakh given by her had bounced.
The lower court had earlier imposed costs ranging from Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000 on Zinta thrice. Two times, she was asked to pay costs for not appearing in the case and on the third occasion she was asked to shell out Rs 10,000 for seeking adjournment.
In another development in a suit filed by Zinta for recovery of Rs two crore from Kamal Amrohi’s son late Shandar, another bench of the high court today asked the legal heirs of Shandar and his widow Shaheeda to furnish within two weeks the details of bank accounts held by them.
A division bench of the high court headed by Justice S J Vajifdar asked them to disclose the details of the bank accounts in their names as well in the name of Shandar.
The bench upheld the order of Justice Kathawala who had in December 2013 directed Shaheeda and her children to file affidavits disclosing details about their bank accounts held by them and those in the name of Shandar.
The affidavit was sought in response to a suit filed by Zinta seeking recovery of Rs 2 crore she had supposedly lent to Shandar Amrohi to fight his legal battles and for other purposes.
This interim order of the single judge was challenged by Shaheeda before a division bench which today upheld it.
According to Shaheeda, such an interim order directing the respondents to disclose bank account details cannot be passed in a recovery suit. However, the division bench turned down her plea.
Zinta filed a suit in the high court in November 2013 seeking to recover principal amount of Rs 2 crore and interest of Rs 80 lakh – calculated at an annual rate of 18 per cent from the day after Shandar passed away on August 22, 2011.
Zinta’s suit said that she did not give the money to Shandar by way of charity, but had done so on the assurance it would be returned once he grew financially stable.
“The plaintiff (Zinta) states that these were debts of Shandar discharged by the plaintiff and not an act intended to be done gratuitously, but on assurance that these amounts would be repaid by Amrohi,” the suit said.
As per the suit, Shandar was constantly at odds with his brother Tajdaar, sister Rukhsar and their families over property. Amrohi, the suit claimed, then approached Zinta, seeking help to recover his property in shares.
It claimed that a few months after Amrohi’s death, Zinta orally requested the family to pay her dues, but no one paid any heed.