Karti Chidambaram's plea against ED dismissed

January 05, 2017 05:17 pm | Updated 07:36 pm IST - CHENNAI

CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, 17/06/2015: Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram at a function in Chennai on June 17, 2015.
Photo: B. Jothi Ramalingam

CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, 17/06/2015: Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram at a function in Chennai on June 17, 2015. Photo: B. Jothi Ramalingam

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea moved by Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union finance minister P. Chidambram, seeking to quash summons issued to him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on August 19.

Justice B. Rajendran refused to interfere in the issue as all the cases pertaining to 2G scam are being monitored by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Karti, who moved the petition through his power of attorney N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, wanted the court to forbear the ED from taking any steps or action against him pursuant to the summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PML) Act, 2002 in connection with the 2G scam.

Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General contended that the High Court could not entertain the case as it lacked jurisdiction since all the cases related to the 2G scam case were being handled by the Supreme Court.

According to the petition, Mr. Karti was summoned by Rajeshwar Singh, Deputy Director, ED, New Delhi on June 21.

The summon instructed him to appear before the officer along with certain documents. Similarly, on July 7, Assistant Director of ED Kamal Singh issued an identical summons to Mr. Karti.

Again, on August 19, the petitioner received a third summons issued by an authorised representative of the Assistant Director.

Since the summons does not refer to any scheduled offence under the PML Act registered by a competent agency, or to any proceeds of crime, Mr. Karti claimed that he made representation to the authorities twice asking for particulars of the scheduled offence. But, despite the request, the officials failed to provide any information.

Claiming that he had reasons to believe that the summons issued to him was motivated by malice in law and malice in fact, he said, “The summons are part of an attempt to embarrass, humiliate and harass the petitioner’s family.”

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.