1997 suit being pursued against me aggressively: Satyarthi

The case against him is related to alleged misappropriation of funds after he was awarded the Nobel prize

Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi has claimed in a Delhi court that the trustees of a charitable trust have "suddenly" and "aggressively" started pursuing a 1997 suit against him relating to alleged misappropriation of funds after he was awarded the prestigious prize.

Child rights activist Satyarthi, who got the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014, said the allegations against him and his wife Sumedha were malafide and the civil suit alleging embezzlement of huge funds should be dismissed with cost.

"The applicants defendants (Satyarthi and Sumedha) submit that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is malafide and is an abuse of the process of law. The plaintiffs who had filed the present suit way back in the year 1997 have suddenly started aggressively prosecuting the proceedings after defendant number 1 has been awarded Nobel Peace Prize," the plea filed before Additional District Judge Kamini Lau said.

The plea was submitted in the pending suit, filed against the couple by Mukti Pratisthan Trust and four trustees alleging that the plaintiffs had got to know about embezzlement of huge sums of money belonging to the trust by maintaining false accounts.

Satyarthi and his wife are also trustees of the trust.

In his plea, Satyarthi has urged the court to direct the plaintiffs to furnish security for the costs incurred or likely to be incurred by the defendants to defend themselves.

"In case any cost of proceedings are awarded, it will not be possible for defendants to recover the same from plaintiffs as they do not possess any sufficient movable property within India from they can realise the costs.

"The plaintiffs do not own any assets from which the defendants may be able to realise the cost of proceedings," Satyarthi's application said, alleging that the plaintiffs had misappropriated trust properties for their own benefit.

The plaintiffs had earlier submitted to the court that they cannot bear even half the cost of chartered accountant to be appointed by it to look into the accounts of trust.