Delhi HC Halts Trial Court Proceedings Against Chidambaram in Aircel-Maxis Case

In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has ordered a stay on the trial court proceedings against P. Chidambaram, a senior Congress leader and former Union Minister, in connection with the Aircel-Maxis money laundering case. The case is currently under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The stay comes after allegations surfaced that Chidambaram, while serving as the Union Finance Minister during the tenure of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, had improperly granted Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval for the Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED have accused him of exceeding his official powers to benefit certain individuals, purportedly receiving kickbacks in return.

READ ALSO  NewsClick row: Delhi HC dismisses portal founder's plea challenging arrest in UAPA case

In March 2022, Chidambaram and his son, Karti Chidambaram, were granted bail by the city court in this high-profile case. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, presiding over the bench, responded to Chidambaram’s plea challenging the city court’s November 27, 2021, decision to take cognizance of the ED’s chargesheet against him and his son. “I’ll pass a detailed order. Issue notice. Till the next date of hearing, the proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed,” stated Justice Ohri.

Video thumbnail

Chidambaram’s petition before the high court sought to overturn the lower court’s order and to stay the proceedings. He argued that the alleged offenses occurred while he was a public servant and that the ED failed to secure the necessary sanctions to initiate prosecution against him. He further contended that the city court had erred in acknowledging the money laundering charges without the ED having obtained prior sanctions.

READ ALSO  दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने दुर्लभ बीमारियों की दवाओं पर सीमा शुल्क से छूट दी

The ED, represented by special counsel Zoheb Hossain, challenged the maintainability of Chidambaram’s plea, arguing that it was unduly delayed, having been filed two years after the city court’s initial acknowledgment of the chargesheet. Hossain also asserted that no sanction was necessary, as the actions in question were not performed by Chidambaram in the discharge of his official duties.

READ ALSO  Maharashtra Commission Advocates for Maratha Reservation, Citing Exceptional Backwardness
Ad 20- WhatsApp Banner

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles