Chinese company Alibaba and its co-founder, Jack Ma, has been summoned by a district court in Gurugram, India.
The court has asked him to appear before it by July 29, regarding a case of wrongful termination from the company, filed by a former employee of UC Web mobile company.
In 2014, UC Web was acquired entirely and merged into Jack Ma’a Alibaba, after over 6 years of consistent investments into the company as a part of the acquisition plan.
Table Of Contents
Complainant’s side on the Case
Speaking on behalf of his client, Atul Ahalat, the lawyer from Delhi has commented on the issue “My client Pushpandra Singh Parmaar, has filed a civil suit against Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba Group, for wrongful termination.”
He was working as an Associate Director with Alibaba’s UC Web Mobile Company, as reported by a news agency.
Furthermore, the prosecuting side is seeking a compensation of 2 Crore Indian rupees ($268k), according to the filed documents.
The petition has further alleged that Mr. Parmaar’s was fired unceremoniously for objecting to false news and censorship of content by the company, which he brought to the notice of the Chinese Internet giant company.
The petition filed by the prosecutor contains over 200 pages, containing several UC news clips and claims other wrongful, unethical practices followed by the company with headquarter in Guangzhou, China.
The aftermath of the apps ban by the Indian Government
The complaint comes after the Indian Government banned 59 Chinese apps including the UC Browser, citing privacy concerns and border conflicts.
Mr. Parmaar claims that he raised similar concerns, accusing UC Browser and UC news for publishing false news to “cause social and political turmoil”, as reported by The Hindu
No response yet from Ma or Alibaba’s side
Summoned initially on July 20, anyone from Jack Ma’s side is yet to comment, give out a statement on the civil case filed in India.
While, UC India said in a statement that it had been “unwavering in its commitment to the Indian market and the welfare of its local employees, and its policies are in compliance with local laws. We are unable to comment on ongoing litigation”.