Famous chef Santosh Sah is currently in police custody. Today, the police have received permission from the Kathmandu District Court to keep him in custody for at least three days. The Valley Crime Investigation Office of the police arrested him in Janakpur on charges of fraud and brought him to Kathmandu on Jestha 30. The police are also investigating Narayan Sah Sudi, who was arrested with him. He is a partner in Mithila Thali Restaurant. Santosh's dispute is related to Shila Restaurant in Gairidhara, which his group purchased from Arjab Holding Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 22.5 crore. The first agreement between Arjab and Mithila Thali was signed on Jestha 24, 2081, and a second agreement was signed between the two parties on Bhadra 17, 2081. Sachin Bhandari is the representative on behalf of Arjab and Ramhit Sah is the representative from Mithila, Santosh Sah has signed as a witness. An agreement was reached between the two parties that Mithila would pay Arjab 1.5 million rupees as collateral. It is mentioned that Mithila would also have to pay the 3.85 million rupees for rent to be paid by the restaurant. There is an agreement between the two parties that Mithila would also have to pay the 2.77 million rupees to be paid to the Electricity Authority, which would be matched with the purchase amount. Similarly, it is mentioned that Mithila would also pay Arjab's loan of 1.35 million rupees to Nepal Bank after the agreement. Out of the remaining 3.29 million rupees of the purchase amount, 1.5 million rupees would be paid in Bhadra 2081 and 1.79 million rupees in Asoj, and an agreement was prepared accordingly.

However, after the loan to Nepal Bank was not paid, an operator of Arjab says that they are under a lot of stress. She said that the bank sent a 35-day advance notice on Chaitra 13, 2081 for the purpose of blacklisting her, saying that the loan payment had become irregular.

'Finally, the bank issued a seven-day notice on Baisakh 2, 2082 for the final payment, but the loan could not be repaid even during that period,' she said, 'We were under a lot of mental stress after Thali did not repay the loan despite repeated requests from the bank. We are paying the installments to protect our property after it went through the auction process. Mithila had to pay that amount as per the agreement.'

After the check given by the Mithila side after the purchase of the restaurant bounced, Shakuntala Adhikari (Thapa) filed a case in the Kathmandu District Court on Jestha 30, 2082 on behalf of Arjab. The writ claims that although Nabil Bank issued checks of 8 lakhs and 9 lakhs on different dates in the name of Mithila Thali, the bank could not withdraw the specified amount. Another check of Rs 4.5 lakh was intentionally given without the company seal, and a case of fraud was filed at the Kathmandu Police premises. The court had demanded Rs 25,000 as bail for Janahi (Santosh, Narayan Sah Sudi, Dilip Kumar Sah and Ramhit Sah) and ordered them to be detained on the date and if they did not pay, they were remanded in custody on 2082 Paush 14. Meanwhile, the Mithila party had approached the court with a writ of injunction. The bench of Justice Khimananda Bhusal ruled on the banking offence case on 2082 Falgun 25. In that, all four of them were sentenced to a fine of Rs 125,000, which is 5 percent of the Rs 25 lakh amount, and one month in prison. They were released on the date after paying a bail of Rs 25,000 for the trial. The verdict states, 'Since the case is on the date for trial, the defendants will be sentenced to one month's imprisonment and the fine will be recovered from the bail they have deposited.'

Mithila Thali's advocate Deepak Dubey said that he is not aware of the arrest at this time. 'I have argued in the previous injunction case. That was settled long ago. But I do not know what the current dispute is about,' he told Kantipur, 'I was able to speak only after seeing the official government charge sheet. I cannot say more now.'

SP Pawan Bhattarai of the District Police Range, Kathmandu, said that they are investigating the fraud-related offense after getting an order from the court.