After listening to arguments from each side, Justice PD Naik said that the order could be issued on February 2.
Rizwan Siddiquee, the authorized consultant for Kangana Ranaut, contended that each circumstances are cross-complaints arising from a 2016 incident involving the 2 events. Siddiquee apprised the court docket that Ranaut’s grievance was lodged 10 months after Akhtar’s. The extended maternity go away taken by the Justice of the Peace prompted a considerable delay in addressing Ranaut’s grievance towards Akhtar.
After Javed Akhtar, Kangana Ranaut criticises Ranbir Kapoor’s ‘Animal’, recollects rejecting movies with Akshay Kumar, Salman Khan and different ‘Massive heroes’
Conversely, attorneys Jay Bharadwaj and Harsh Ramchandani, representing Javed Akhtar, argued that the complaints don’t qualify as cross-complaints. Akhtar’s grievance stems from a tv interview carried out by Ranaut in 2020, subsequent to the alleged suicide of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
Bharadwaj asserted that the Justice of the Peace was approaching the conclusion of the trial in Akhtar’s grievance. He emphasised that Ranaut’s grievance, in its preliminary levels, confronted delays as a result of her lack of pursuit. Moreover, he underscored that Ranaut’s grievance, rooted within the 2016 encounter, was lodged over five-and-a-half years after the incident occurred.
Bharadwaj additional asserted that, having a authorized proper to problem the proceedings towards Akhtar, the court docket had quickly halted the proceedings within the Justice of the Peace court docket. He contended that had Ranaut’s lawyer not requested an adjournment, the matter may have been resolved, dismissing it as a deliberate delay tactic.
Siddiquee, in response, cited Supreme Court docket judgments, arguing that as each complaints are cross-complaints, they need to be adjudicated collectively, with a unified order issued for a good decision.
