However, news reports had claimed that Latha, wife of actor Rajinikanth, was admonished by the Supreme Court on 3 July for defaulting on repaying a sum of Rs6.2 crore to AD-Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd.
Contrary to news reports SC vindicated mother's position, claims Soundarya Rajinikanth
Chennai - 05 Jul 2018 17:11 IST
Director Soundarya Rajinikanth, daughter of actor Rajinikanth, has issued a statement claiming that a number of news publications have misrepresented the proceedings against her mother, Latha, that took place before the Supreme Court on 3 July.
As earlier reported, Latha was admonished by the Supreme Court for defaulting on repaying a sum of Rs6.2 crore to AD-Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd. She had taken a loan of Rs14.90 crore to complete the post-production of Rajinikanth-starrer Kochadaiiyaan (2014). The court had asked to repay the amount in 12 weeks.
However, Soundarya, in her statement, said, “Whilst the publications record what transpired during the oral part of the hearing, they do not mention the official order of the bench which, contrary to representations made in the said publications, vindicates Mrs Rajinikanth’s position.”
The director shared a copy of the court's official order on her Twitter page.
“What was recorded in the order dated 16.04.2018 cannot be implemented as not only is there a denial of liability on the part of M/s Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd but also it is stated on behalf of respondent number 1 [Latha Rajinikanth] that the statement made by her counsel, as recorded, was without instructions and the liability of the respondent No 1 is not to the extent indicated. Having considered the matter, the court is of the view that instead of entering into the issue of extent of liabilities of the parties, it would be more appropriate to hear and decide the petition on merits," read the court order.
According to news reports, the Supreme Court bench, consisting justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi, had on 3 July, said, “We do not like people playing around with the court’s order. The long and short of it is that you [Latha] have not paid and the law will take its own course. We will pass the order.”
In February this year, Latha had assured the court that the loan would be repayed. “We had kept the matter pending [on 20 February] because you had said that you will pay the amount. Special leave petition is kept pending for three months,” the bench was reported to have noted.