38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, October 02, 2023
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
About Us Contact Us

Delhi Court Refuses to Stay Coercive Action Against Businessman Navneet Kalra in Oxygen Concentrator Hoarding Case

By Mathews Savio Mathews Savio      May 11, 2021      0 Comments      1,332 Views
Delhi Court Refuses to Stay Coercive Action Against Businessman Navneet Kalra

A court in Saket, Delhi refused to grant interim relief in the form of a stay on coercive actions to Delhi based businessman Navneet Kalra in the case related to hoarding of oxygen cylinders. 


Last week the Delhi Police had uncovered a hoard of 524 oxygen concentrators from three upscale hotels owned by Karla. In the initial raid at the famous Khan Chacha restaurant in Khan Market 96 oxygen concentrators were recovered and 9 concentrators were recovered from the Town Hall restaurant. Later raid in Nege & Ju Restaurant and Bar in Lodhi Colony recovered 419 of the medical devices. All three hotels are owned by Karla.

Since the raid Karla, with his family, has been absconding and the Delhi Police has issued a lookout notice against him.

It is alleged that the oxygen concentrators were imported from China by a private company and kept hoarded for sale in the black market owing to the high demand for the product in the worsening Covid situation in the capital.

It is alleged that the accused were charging as high as Rs 70,000 for the oxygen concentrators which in the open market costs around Rs 15,000 to Rs 20,000.

The matter has now been transferred to the Crime Branch. Four people including the Managers of the hotels have been arrested by the police and a manhunt has begun for Kalra.

The accused are charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 

After hearing the application for anticipatory bail and interim stay on coercive action Special Judge Sumit Dass directed the Investigating Officer (IO) to file the reply to the application.

During the hearing of the matter, the public prosecutor Atul Shrivastava opposed the anticipatory bail application and questioned the jurisdiction of the court to entertain such an application in a matter investigated by the Crime Branch.

The advocate for Karla submitted that his client was being “hounded” by the police and that he is not guilty of the charges put on him.

Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this




Lawstreet Advertisement

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email