E-Paper
Robert Vadra's explanation of Dubai stay satisfactory, says court; asks him to be careful
In a relief to Robert Vadra, a Delhi court accepted his explanation of medical emergencies as to why he stayed in the UAE though he was not given any such permission by the court.
A Delhi court on Saturday accepted the explanation that businessman Robert Vadra, the husband of Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi, provided explaining his Dubai trip and asked him to be careful in the future. The court earlier issued a showcause notice to Vadra for violating the terms and conditions for travelling abroad imposed on Vadra.
On August 12, the court allowed Vadra to travel to the UK via UAE, Spain and Italy for four weeks. But it was later found that Vadra stayed in the UAE from August 25 to August 29.
In his explanation, Vadra said he was forced to stay in Dubai because of his medical condition -- though he was not given permission to stay in Dubai. He said he had deep vein thrombosis in his left leg and was advised to take proper rest between long-haul flights because of which he had to stay in Dubai while he was travelling to the UK via UAE.
"The submission, therefore, is not misplaced and the explanation not too far fetched that the applicant was under a bona fade impression that the four days stay at Dubai is not in contravention of the permission...," the court said.
The court also noted that Vadra has shown sufficient cause and satisfactory explanation for the four-day stopover at UAE apart from apologising for the violation. "... From the contents of the affidavit, I am satisfied that the omission is not intentional, the explanation is not an afterthought, and conduct of the applicant does not lack bona fides and good faith," special judge Neelofar Abida Parveen said.
“The applicant has tendered unqualified and unconditional apology for the lapse which is accepted in the circumstances as noted above. However, the applicant is warned to remain careful in future. The show cause notice stands accordingly discharged,” the court said.
The ED had alleged that the violation was deliberate and intentional and the applicant tried to circumvent the order of the court.
(With agency inputs)
