Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Monday granted respite to Tech Mahindra Limited (formerly Satyam Computer Services Ltd) by allowing its petitions seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending against it in a lower court of the Hyderabad regarding the Satyam Computers scam.

The Enforcement Directorate had booked cases against Tech Mahindra Ltd along with Satyam Ramalinga Raju and others for offences committed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

Tech Mahindra Ltd argued that the company cannot be prosecuted for offences committed by the erstwhile management of Satyam Computers and that Tech Mahindra came into existence after the confession by Ramalinga Raju, the founder of Satyam.

The company told the court that the CBI had booked cases under Section 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC and it could not be connected with any of the offences and based on the IPC, the ED cannot book the new management under the PMLA Act.

While allowing the plea, Justice P. Naveen Rao held that Tech Mahindra cannot be held liable for offences committed by the old management of the company under Section 467 of IPC, which deals with forgery of valuable security, will and other documents.

Holding the writ of Tech Mahindra maintainable, the judge said the pleadings of the petitioner covered under the findings of the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal’s case and this court has power to quash the criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

No intervention in toddy policy

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the Hyderabad High Court on Monday refused to intervene in the decision of the Telangana state government in setting up toddy shops within of GHMC limits.

The bench was hearing a PIL questioning the action of the Telangana state government in facilitating re-establishment of toddy shops after a gap of 10 years in the GHMC limits.

Professor P.L. Visweswara Rao, former IAS officer M. Chaya Ratan moved the PIL. The bench pointed out that it was a policy decision of the government and the court won’t intervene.