Bombay HC plays audio clip of Sanjay Raut's statements against Kangana Ranaut, Lawyer says Raut did not call her 'Haramkhor Ladki'

A bench comprising Justice SJ Kathawala and R I Chagla asked Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Kangana, to play the audio clip

Bombay HC plays audio clip of Sanjay Raut's statements against Kangana Ranaut, Lawyer says Raut did not call her 'Haramkhor Ladki' | Bombay-High-Court,Kangana-Ranaut,Bombay-High-Court-Sanjay-Raut- True Scoop

The hearing of Kangana Ranaut's office demolition case started in the Bombay High Court and it was quite an intense one. However, the Bombay high court seemed fumed at Shiv Sena Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut. During the hearing, the Bombay High Court on Monday played the audio clip of Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut's statements against her. 

A bench comprising Justice SJ Kathawala and R I Chagla asked Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Kangana, to play the audio clip. This was after Saraf submitted that the demolition was vitiated by malice as it was a vindictive action against Ranaut for her remarks against the Maharashtra government.

Saraf submitted that Raut had used derogatory language against the actor by calling her Haramkhor Ladki and had threatened her that she needs to be "taught a lesson".

After the clip was played, Raut's lawyer, Advocate Pradeep J Torat, submitted that his client had not taken Kangana's name in his statement. In response, Justice Kathawalla asked Torat if the court can record his statement that Raut was not referring to Kangana Ranaut.

The justice Kathwalla asked Torat, "Are you saying your client has not called her a 'Haramkhor ladki'? Can we record the statement that Raut has not called the petitioner Haramkhor?"

Also Read: "CBI trying to protect Aaditya Thackeray in Sushant Singh Rajput's case": Sushant gym partner Sunil Shukla

Torat then replied that he will file an affidavit on this tomorrow. Ranaut's lawyer submitted that the demolition action was vitiated by both 'malice in law' and 'malice in fact'.

"It cannot be disputed that there is a great deal of angst against my client. In recent times the petitioner has been at loggerheads with the Maharashtra Government over the way in which certain issues have been handled. This displeased certain quarters", Saraf added.



Trending