Supreme Court notice to Tejpal on Jaya Jaitley's plea | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Nov 23, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Supreme Court notice to Tejpal on Jaya Jaitley's plea

The Supreme Court issues notice to Tarun Tejpal, Editor-in-Chief of Tehlka, on a petition filed by Samata Party leader Jaya Jaitley challenging a High Court stay on proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed by her against him.

delhi Updated: Nov 26, 2007 18:51 IST

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to Tarun Tejpal, Editor-in-Chief of Tehlka, on a petition filed by Samata Party leader Jaya Jaitley challenging a High Court stay on proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed by her against him.

The Delhi High Court on May 31 this year had restrained the trial court from going ahead with the proceedings in the defamation case after taking into consideration that CBI had filed a chargesheet against Tejpal in a case emanating from the defence deal expose carried by the Tehekla.Com in 2001.

After a brief hearing, a Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, sought reply from Tejpal as senior advocate Arun Jaitley, appearing for the Samata Party leader, said the chargesheet filed by the investigating agency cannot in law have any bearing on the defamation case.

Jaitley along with advocate Abhijat submitted that the High Court judgement had led to grave miscarriage of justice as the judgment in the High Court was reserved 11 months before the CBI had filed the charge sheet in a case arising from the sting operation 'Operation Westend" showing alleged corruption in defence deals.

The Samata Party leader had filed a defamation case in the trial court against Tejpal, the Managing Director of the news portal, for writing objectionable articles against her and the then Defence Minister George Fernandes.

The High Court had stayed the proceeding till the designated CBI court in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act took the decision on framing of charges. The High Court had said, "It may not be proper to have the two proceedings go on simultaneously."