Earlier this week, there were rumours about The Supreme Court ordering Rajinikanth's wife, Latha Rajinikanth to repay the outstanding amount of ₹6.2 crores to an advertising agency. There were various speculations and contrastingly different reports from the media regarding this case. Now Latha Rajinikanth has given a clarification for the same:
PRESS RELEASE ON BEHALF OF LATHA RAJINIKANTH DATED 5 JULY 2018
A number of online and hardcopy publications by major newspapers have incompletely reported and therefore misrepresented the proceedings that took place before the Supreme Court on 3 July 2018 before a bench comprising of Justices Gogoi and Banumathi. This hearing pertained to the Special Leave Petition filed by M/s AD-Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd, in which Ms. Latha Rajinikanth is respondent no.1.
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, vindicatesMrs. Rajinikanth's position. The court's order dated 3 July 2018 states as follows:
"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 No.1 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 the extent of liabilities of the parties it would be more appropriate to hear and decide the petition on merits."
The above clarification is tendered for the rectification of the records of all the newspaper companies who have published on the matter.
Court Order
ITEM NO.41
COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4587/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-03-2016 in CRLA No. 4291/2015 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
M/S. AD-BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS LATHA RAJANIKANT & ANR. Respondent(s) Date 03-07-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM HON.BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON.BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Parties Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Ms. Elambharti Subbiah, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Adv. Ms. Garima Jain, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Priya Aristotle, Adv.
Ms. Vishakha Adv. For Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR
Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Heard the learned counsels for the parties. What was recorded in the order dated 16.04.2018 cannot be implemented as not only there is a denial of liability on the part of M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. but also it is
* Latha's statement and court order are not spell-checked