Aircel Maxis case: P. Chidambaram gets interim protection from arrest till 7 August

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Delhi’s Patiala House court today on 23 July 2018 extended the interim protection given to P. Chidambaram in nexus to INX Media case till 7 August 2018. The court said no intimidating action against P. Chidambaram shall be executed. Earlier in the month, he was granted protection against any arrest by ED (Enforcement Directorate) and CBI till 10 July 2018. The court also granted Karti Chidambaram to travel abroad for business purposes from 23 July to 31 July 2018.

In the INX Media case, the court gave interim protection to P. Chidambaram till 1 August 2018, which is now extended to 7 August 2018 by the Patiala House Court   Earlier, in the Aircel Maxis case, came out of 2G spectrum cases, irregularities have been found pertaining to clearance granted  by FIPB (Foreign Investment Promotion Board)  to firm M/s Global Communication Holding Services Ltd. for investment in Aircel.

Chidambaram’s role came under the investigation agency (ED and CBI) in the Aircel Maxis Deal of 3500 Crores and INX media case involving 305 crores. It was during his term in office as Finance Minister FIPB clearance was given in these two ventures. Clearance being given in 2006, it was beyond the authority of P. Chidambaram which was only up to Rs. 600 Crores.

In INX case, the CBI had registered an FIR last year against the alleged non-uniformity in the FIPB clearance to INX media for receiving funds from foreign in 2007 when P. Chidambaram was the Finance Minister. CBI presses for the former Union Minister’s custodial interrogation, alleging it was necessary as he has remained evasive and non-cooperative during questioning

A plea for anticipatory bail of P. Chidambaram the former union minister was filed to the Delhi high court in respect to the money laundering case related to INX Media. The plea was submitted by Adv. Pramod Kumar Dubey and Arshdeep Singh said that although no summons have been issued by the ED, P. Chidambaram has an apprehension of arrest by the CBI. P. Chidambaram in his plea has said that the present case is mala fide and is only made with a political point of view to disrupt this respect, that the alleged agency is acting on the behalf of the central government to perish his reputation.

The agency has sought time to submit its response on Mr Chidambaram’s anticipatory bail plea. The agency said that in its response that P. Chidambaram is not co-operative and evasive. CBI said that “The material collected so far and the gravity of the offence which is to unfold requires custodial interrogation’’

The Delhi high court would hear the plea of anticipatory bail of the former union minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media Case

Justice AK Pathak did not hold the court in post-lunch session; plea will be heard on 24 July 2018.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -