The CBI special court on Friday questioned the legal validity of a major charge raised by the CBI against CPM state secretary and former power minister Pinarayi Vijayan
in the SNC-Lavalin case. The charge was that Vijayan failed to convert
the MoU on a promise by the Canadian company to grant Rs 98.3 crore for
setting up Malabar Cancer Centre
in return for a contract for renovation of Panniyar, Senkulam and
Pallivasal power projects into a legally binding agreement which
eventually led the company to back out from the project.
Special judge R Reghu also asked the CBI prosecutor why G Karthikeyan, who preceded Pinarayi Vijayan as the minister for power and signed the memorandum of understanding with SNC Lavalin, was excluded from the charge sheet. The CBI was grilled by the judge on the final day of the hearing of the discharge petition filed by Vijayan, the seventh accused in the case. On November 5, the court will deliver its verdict on the petition.
The judge read out from the charge sheet where CBI states that two Canadian agencies, Canadian International Development Agency (CEDA) and Export Development Canada (EDC), had made promises on behalf of SNC Lavalin to grant the fund. According to section 41 of Indian Contract Law, when a promisee accepts a promise from a third party, he or she cannot later enforce the same from the original promisor. In this case, the two Canadian agencies are third parties as CBI has not enlisted them as accuse and therefore even if the MoU was made into a legal agreement it would not have had legal validity, the court explained..
Given this situation, the judge asked the CBI prosecutor whether a person can be charged for not executing a promise that cannot be made into a legally binding agreement, to which the CBI prosecutor failed to give a convincing reply. Pinarayi's counsel M K Damodaran, however, said had there been a Memorandum of Agreement, it would have been enforceable. The judge was not convinced.
Special judge R Reghu also asked the CBI prosecutor why G Karthikeyan, who preceded Pinarayi Vijayan as the minister for power and signed the memorandum of understanding with SNC Lavalin, was excluded from the charge sheet. The CBI was grilled by the judge on the final day of the hearing of the discharge petition filed by Vijayan, the seventh accused in the case. On November 5, the court will deliver its verdict on the petition.
The judge read out from the charge sheet where CBI states that two Canadian agencies, Canadian International Development Agency (CEDA) and Export Development Canada (EDC), had made promises on behalf of SNC Lavalin to grant the fund. According to section 41 of Indian Contract Law, when a promisee accepts a promise from a third party, he or she cannot later enforce the same from the original promisor. In this case, the two Canadian agencies are third parties as CBI has not enlisted them as accuse and therefore even if the MoU was made into a legal agreement it would not have had legal validity, the court explained..
Given this situation, the judge asked the CBI prosecutor whether a person can be charged for not executing a promise that cannot be made into a legally binding agreement, to which the CBI prosecutor failed to give a convincing reply. Pinarayi's counsel M K Damodaran, however, said had there been a Memorandum of Agreement, it would have been enforceable. The judge was not convinced.
Ref Link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/No-legal-basis-for-charges-against-Pinarayi-CBI-court/articleshow/23993574.cms
No comments:
Post a Comment