Delhi Court Issues NBW Against NIAL MD in Rs 3 Crore Cheque Bounce Case

A Delhi court recently issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the Managing Director (MD) of Nellore International Airport Limited (NIAL) due to his non-appearance in a three crore rupee cheque bounce case.

Metropolitan magistrate Shikha Chahal issued the NBW against Vankayalapati Umesh on October 9. The court observed, “There is no cogent reason for the non-appearance of the accused today, and he had sought adjournment on the last date of the hearing for furnishing bail bonds and to engage a lawyer.”

Furthermore, the court noted that the accused was well aware of the ongoing proceedings in this matter and appeared to be deliberately evading the legal process through his non-appearance. The court stated in the order, “It appears from the conduct of the accused that his non-appearance is intentional.”

The court ordered, “Issue NBWs against the accused through SHO concerned on the filing of PF within 14 days, returnable on the next date of hearing. Steps be taken within 14 days.” The court scheduled the matter for the appearance of the accused, bail bond submission, and notice framing on November 22, 2023.

The court clarified that the matter is currently at the stage of bail bond submission and settlement verification. Since the parties have not reached a settlement, the matter is proceeding on its merits.

Advocate Utkarsh Singh, representing the complainant Company ANS Construction Pvt. Ltd., informed the court that the accused had not appeared. The complainant alleged that NIAL, based in Hyderabad, had offered a Rs 100 Crore contract to the complainant company in Delhi. As part of the contract, Rs 3 crore were taken as Earnest Money Deposit (EMD).

However, neither the contract was awarded to the company nor was the EMD returned. Subsequently, several cheques amounting to Rs 3 crore were issued to refund the EMD, but one of these cheques, given in return for the EMD, bounced.

The complainant’s counsel, Advocate Utkarsh Singh, stated that despite requesting time to settle the dispute, the accused did not approach for a settlement and did not appear before the court. In fact, time was sought to furnish bail bonds and engage a lawyer, but no such appearance occurred.