The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to Vedanta Aluminium Ltd, a subsidiary of London Stock Exchange-listed Vedanta Resources Plc, its chairman Anil Agarwal and seven other top officials of the company on a petition filed by Maytas Infra Ltd. The petitioner alleged that Vedanta had misappropriated its funds and fraudulently encashed its bank guarantees furnished towards the contract for development of the Rs 232-crore township in May 2008.
A bench headed by Justice H S Bedi sought reply from the Tamil Nadu-based Vedanta, its chairman Anil Agarwal, vice-chairman Navin Agarwal, chief finance officer Venkat, the Andhra Pradesh government and five other top officials of company as to why the criminal complaint filed by Maytas should not be restored. The Hyderabad-based infrastructure development company has challenged the Andhra Pradesh High Court?s judgment of November 18 last year that quashed its complaint against the Vedanta chairman and eight others. The trial court had asked the local police to register a case against Vedanta chairman Anil Agarwal and eight others for invocation of bank guarantees furnished by Maytas.
Following this, Vedanta had moved the High Court saying it had invoked the bank guarantees according to provisions of the agreement. Vedanta and Maytas Infra had entered into an agreement in November 2007 for construction of a township near the former?s plant at Jharsiguda in Orissa. Under the agreement, Maytas Infra had to construct the township at a cost of Rs 232 crore in a specified period.
Maytas Infra had furnished two bank guarantees worth Rs 46 crore as part of the agreement. Later, citing non-compliance to the provisions of the agreement, Vedanta had invoked the bank guarantee. According to petition, the accused had unilaterally changed the site that was shown to Maytas and had delayed and deviated from the original project.
Maytas had even issued a legal notice to Vedanta for fraudulently and illegally encashing the two bank guarantees in January last year and for not clearing admitted dues. Alleging breach of contract by Vedanta, Maytas senior counsel Ranjit Kumar and Gaurav Goyal said the former had encashed the guarantees without even terminating the contract or establishing any breach of the terms and conditions by it.
?It was the clear cut case of criminal breach of trust and cheating by the respondent (Vedanta) of the petitioner?s (Maytas) huge sums of money because after having amended the contract and inducing the petitioner to continue the bank guarantee despite the respondent?s own defaults. Bank guarantee was encashed immediately after the amendment of the agreement and much prior to the date of completion of the project,? the petition stated.
It further said Vedanta had intention of misappropriating its funds through encashment of bank guarantees when it was itself at fault. Maytas said Vedanta had confined its manager and other officials and coerced them to sign a mutual agreement in January last year towards full and final settelement in respect of the township project.