Aircel-Maxis scam: SC permits inclusion of 2 companies of Karti Chidambaram in contempt petition of Dr. Swamy

2G: CBI to give report on Maran to apex court

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 IANS

New Delhi, Nov 1 (IANS) The CBI told the Supreme Court Thursday that it would file a status report next week on its probe against former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran for his alleged involvement in the controversial Maxis-Aircel telecom deal.

Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval told the apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan that the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) status report would also include other dimensions of the investigation undertaken by the agency in the 2G matter.

The court declined to pass any direction on the plea of Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) counsel Prashant Bhushan plea that the CBI be asked to submit a status report on its probe into allocation of excess spectrum to the telecom operators during late telecom minister Pramod Mahajan’s tenure in 2002.

The judges said that let the investigating agency submit its status report and then it would decided what direction was to be given to it.

The court said that the investigating agency was free to proceed against NGO Telecom Watchdog’s secretary Anil Kumar for making a volte face on his earlier allegation on the involvement of Maran in the Maxis-Aircel deal.

The apex court April 11 directed Sharma to explain his turnaround in stating that Maran, when he was the telecom minister, compelled Chennai-based businessman C. Sivasankaran to sell his stake in mobile telephony provider Aircel to Singapore-based Maxis.

The court said this when Raval told the court that the investigating agency was initiating proceedings against Anil Kumar.

Telecom Watchdog had sought investigation into the role of Dayanidhi Maran, alleging that the former telecom minister created a situation where Sivasankaran – the original owner of Aircel – was forced to sell-off his entire stake in the company to Malaysia-based Maxis owned by T. Ananda Krishnan.

The court took on board the amended cause page of Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy’s petition seeking contempt proceedings against Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and his son Kirit Chidambaram for initiating defamation proceedings against him in a Singapore court.

The court had asked Swamy to include two companies owned by Kirit Chidambaram as respondents in his contempt petition. The Singapore arm of Advantage Strategic Consulting had initiated defamation proceedings against Swamy.

Swamy said that Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore (ASC Singapore) allegedly held by Chidambaram’s son had filed a defamation case against him for pointing to questionable transactions between Advantage Strategic Consulting and Aircel, when the Aircel-Maxis deal was underway.

Swamy contended that Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore was the wholly-owned subsidiary of an India-based company by similar name.

He contended that the defamation proceedings were intended to fetter him from pursuing 2G cases.–2G-CBI-to-give-report-on-Maran-to-apex-court-.html


About janamejayan

A Viraat Hindu dedicated to spread the message of Paramacharya of Kanchi
This entry was posted in Anti-national Congress Party, corruption India, Dr.Subramanian Swamy, Sonia and Mafia. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Aircel-Maxis scam: SC permits inclusion of 2 companies of Karti Chidambaram in contempt petition of Dr. Swamy

  1. Raman says:

    It is stange that the Singhvi bench which is monitoring 2G cas has taken almost a year to rake up the case of Maran in the Aircel-Maxis case and allowing the CBI such a long rope and allowing it also to sleep for a long time before finally waking up with this issue.It can now safely be assured that this case will prolong till the retirement of Singhvi in Dec 2013 and will face its own death.Is it the way the SC monitorig case shuld continue.So too nobody know what is going on in the Trial Court and whether Saini is pursuing the case or has gone on a long leave?All just an eye wash and in the end except for some bureucrats all will go scotfree.Giving adjournemt after adjournement is bad for any case which shuld be restricted but unfortunately it is the same way SC is following like the lower courts which take 2 or 3 decades to finish a case.Wonderful way of judicial functioning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s