Updated: September 28, 2020 9:33:52 pm
The HC has asked Ranaut to produce all of his tweets and the full video interview of Raut where he allegedly used the abusive word. (Proceedings)
Shiv Sena spokesman and MP Sanjay Raut did not mention Kangana Ranaut’s name when he used an “expletive” to describe a “girl,” his lawyer told the Bombay High Court on Monday.
The court had asked Pradeep Thorat, Raut’s lawyer, to clarify whether his client had used an abusive word against the actor.
When the court asked Ranaut to substantiate her claims of having been “abused by Raut”, her lawyer, the main defender Birendra Saraf, reproduced a fragment of an interview that the Sena leader gave to a television channel, where she was heard say ‘Woh xxxx ladki‘. Saraf said the expletive referred to Ranaut.
Thorat said that his client had not mentioned the actor’s name and therefore Raut could not be interpreted as having abused Ranaut.
The HC asked Saraf to produce all of Ranaut’s tweets, the full video of Raut’s interview where he allegedly used the abusive word, and a later video of him explaining the word he used.
During the course of the day’s hearing on Ranaut’s petition against the demolition of parts of his office, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) said work was underway at the Pali Hill facility when it took action.
The division court of Judge SJ Kathawalla and Judge RI Chagla had wanted to know why the BMC had invoked section 354 (A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporations Act, which refers to the issuance of “suspension works” for an ongoing construction or other work on a site, and not section 351, which refers to “unauthorized work completed” but requires sufficient notice to the property owner.
The BMC stated that completion or renovation work on the unauthorized modifications and additions was underway at the Ranaut site.
According to the BMC, Ranaut, in response to the notice of suspension of work on September 8, had stated that no works were being carried out, when in fact they were, so the civic body was justified in considering it as a continuation of the reforms carried out. in the past and invoke section 354 (A).
Lead attorney Aspi Chinoy, who appeared for the BMC, presented: “If she had said (while responding to the job suspension notice) that she had stopped working or was on leave, the seven-day period under section 351 of the MMC Law would have started. “
Saraf and attorney Rizwan Siddiquee, who appeared for Ranaut, previously told the court that only leak tests were being conducted at the facility, which was “detected and inspected by Mukadam and the BMC executive engineer on September 5 and 7, respectively. “.
Saraf said the alleged alterations and additions, mentioned in the BMC notice, were completed in 2019 and could be proven with photographs of the rituals performed by the actor at the bungalow in January this year.
Read also | Why NCB Doesn’t Investigate BJP Connection In Sushant Death Case: Sachin Sawant
Chinoy and defender Joel Carlos stated: “This petition is presented as a person harassed for his public statements against a government and a party in power. The reality is something different. This is a case in which the petitioner has illegally carried out substantial illegal alterations. There is a studied silence about when this work was done ”.
The court also questioned H-West Ward BMC Designated Officer Bhagyavant Late and noted that while he took more time to demolish other properties in the same area, he acted swiftly in the Ranaut case.
The court will continue hearing the matter on Tuesday, September 29, starting at 3 pm.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines
For the latest news from Mumbai, download the Indian Express app.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
