Saxena made the allegation during his cross examination before Metropolitan Magistrate Nishant Garg in a defamation case filed by him against the activist, who was also present in the court, for her remarks on a television channel in 2006.
Patkar and Saxena have been embroiled in a legal battle since 2000 after she filed a suit against him for publishing advertisements against her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA). Saxena, in turn, had filed two cases against her for making derogatory and defamatory statements.
During the cross examination, conducted by Patkar's counsel V K Ohri, Saxena denied having lodged a false case against Patkar and claimed that the advertisement published in 2000 about her was not based on false documents and the same has been admitted by the activist.
He denied the suggestion of Patkar's counsel that the advertisement titled "True face of Medha Patkar and her NBA" published on November 10, 2000 was based on false documents with an intention to defame her.
After conclusion of the cross examination of Saxena, the court posted all the three defamation cases for hearing on February 13, 2018.
Patkar and Saxena had, on the last date of hearing, refused the suggestion of the court to settle the matter through mediation.
The activist had told the court that an earlier attempt to reach a compromise did not fructify as she did not accept the proposal of Saxena, also President of Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), asking her to withdraw another complaint against him in Gujarat.
The court had on August 17 issued a warrant seeking production of Patkar after she repeatedly failed to appear before it.
It had issued a warrant against her after she sought exemption from personal appearance on the grounds that she was arrested by the Indore Police and sent to jail during her protests in Madhya Pradesh.
Costs of Rs 10,000 were also imposed on Patkar on August 3 for her repeated failure to appear before the court which had also warned her of dismissing her complaint against Saxena if she failed to appear again.
It had in January 2015 imposed Rs 3,000 as costs on her for non-appearance.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
