Maytas Infra files criminal case against Vedanta
By IANSThursday, February 26, 2009
HYDERABAD - Maytas Infra, the infrastructure firm owned by the son of disgraced former chairman of Satyam Computer Services B. Ramalinga Raju, has filed a criminal case against Vedanta Aluminium and eight of its employees for ‘fraudulently’ encashing bank guarantees without terminating a contract between them.
The case has been filed in court here for criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy.
‘The contract between VAL (Vedanta) and Maytas dated March 20, 2008 and amended on May 3, 2008 states that Maytas Infra Ltd, being the contractor, was supposed to execute the work of building the township for Vedanta Aluminium within 18 months which expires on March 23, 2010,’ a statement issued by Maytas here said.
It said bank guarantees of Rs.470 crore were fraudulently encashed without terminating the contract for constructing the Rs.2.32-billion township in Jharsuguda in Orissa.
The court has registered the case and referred the matter to the Hyderabad police for appropriate action, the statement added.
Maytas alleged that Vedanta was also responsible for non-payment of admitted dues and non-settlement of commercial issues.
The infrastructure firm run by Ramalinga Raju’s son has accused Vedanta of trying to take advantage of the situation created by the Rs.70-billion Satyam scam.
Maytas lost several projects in Orissa, West Bengal and other states after Ramalinga Raju admitted to the accounting fraud in Satyam Jan 7.
He is accused of diverting Satyam’s funds to the companies promoted by his family members but Maytas, run by his son B. Teja Raju, has denied this.
The central government last week approached the Company Law Board to remove the directors of Maytas Infra and Maytas Properties.
Corporate Affairs Minister Prem Chand Gupta had said the government has found evidence that the two companies were involved in money laundering, fraudulent accounting and diversion of funds.
Maytas Infra has already announced that it would be contesting the government move in the Company Law Board.
