SEKAR REPORTER Blog

இஸ்லாமியர்கள் எந்த மசூதியிலும் ‘நமாஸ்’ செய்யலாம், இந்துக்களால் ராமர் பிறந்த இடத்தை மாற்ற முடியாது -அயோத்தி வழக்கில் வாதம் இஸ்லாமியர்களால் அனைத்து மசூதிகளிலும் நமாஸ் செய்ய முடியும் ஆனால் இந்துக்களால் ராமரின் பிறந்த இடத்தை மாற்ற முடியாது என்று அயோத்தி வழக்கு வாதத்தின்போது வக்கீல் பராசரன் தெரிவித்தார். https://dailythanthi.com/News/TopNews/2019/10/15163546/Muslims-can-offer-namaz-in-any-mosque-Hindus-cannot.vpf 0

இஸ்லாமியர்கள் எந்த மசூதியிலும் ‘நமாஸ்’ செய்யலாம், இந்துக்களால் ராமர் பிறந்த இடத்தை மாற்ற முடியாது -அயோத்தி வழக்கில் வாதம் இஸ்லாமியர்களால் அனைத்து மசூதிகளிலும் நமாஸ் செய்ய முடியும் ஆனால் இந்துக்களால் ராமரின் பிறந்த இடத்தை மாற்ற முடியாது என்று அயோத்தி வழக்கு வாதத்தின்போது வக்கீல் பராசரன் தெரிவித்தார். https://dailythanthi.com/News/TopNews/2019/10/15163546/Muslims-can-offer-namaz-in-any-mosque-Hindus-cannot.vpf

You have been shared with an article from DailyThanthi Application இஸ்லாமியர்கள் எந்த மசூதியிலும் ‘நமாஸ்’ செய்யலாம், இந்துக்களால் ராமர் பிறந்த இடத்தை மாற்ற முடியாது -அயோத்தி வழக்கில் வாதம் இஸ்லாமியர்களால் அனைத்து மசூதிகளிலும் நமாஸ் செய்ய முடியும் ஆனால் இந்துக்களால் ராமரின் பிறந்த Read More

Won’t recuse from land acquisition case: Justice Arun Mishra: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wont-recuse-from-land-acquisition-case-justice-arun-mishra/article29691758.ece 0

Won’t recuse from land acquisition case: Justice Arun Mishra: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wont-recuse-from-land-acquisition-case-justice-arun-mishra/article29691758.ece

Won’t recuse from land acquisition case: Justice Arun Mishra: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wont-recuse-from-land-acquisition-case-justice-arun-mishra/article29691758.ece Share on: WhatsApp

INX Media case: Chidambaram seeks bail in SC, says CBI wants to keep him in jail to humiliate him: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/inx-media-case-chidambaram-seeks-bail-in-sc-says-cbi-wants-to-keep-him-in-jail-to-humiliate-him/article29691314.ece [10/15, 19:46] Sekarreporter1: Former finance minister P. Chidambaram on Tuesday sought bail from the Supreme Court in the INX Media corruption case saying the CBI wants to keep him in custody to humiliate him. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Mr. Chidambaram, told the bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi that there were no allegations about the former finance minister or his family members having ever tried to approach or influence any witness in the case. [10/15, 19:46] Sekarreporter1: The lawyers told the apex court that there are no allegations of financial loss or siphoning of funds. They also questioned the findings of the Delhi High Court, which had rejected Mr. Chidambaram’s bail plea on September 30, saying it should not have referred to the merits of the case while deciding a bail petition.   The court will hear on Wednesday the arguments of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI. Meanwhile, a trial court on Tuesday allowed the Enforcement Directorate to interrogate Mr. Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case and said that if required, the agency can arrest him. The CBI had on Monday challenged in the apex court the findings of the high court, which had observed while denying bail to the senior Congress leader, that he was not a flight risk and could not tamper with evidence. The high court had decided 74-year-old Chidambaram’s bail petition on three aspects — flight risk, tampering with evidence and influencing of witnesses. On flight risk and tampering with evidence, the high court had ruled in favour of Mr. Chidambaram, while on the third count of influencing witnesses, the verdict had gone against him. The high court had said Mr. Chidambaram was not a “flight risk” and there was no chance of his tampering with evidence but he could influence witnesses if granted bail. Challenging the high court order denying him bail, Mr. Chidambaram had earlier approached the apex court, which issued a notice to the CBI, asking the investigative agency to respond to the plea.   Mr. Chidambaram, who is lodged in Tihar Jail here under judicial custody till October 17 in the INX Media corruption case, was arrested by the CBI on August 21. The CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007, during Mr. Chidambaram’s tenure as finance minister. Thereafter, the ED lodged a money-laundering case in this regard in 2017. Mr. Chidambaram had challenged the high court’s September 30 order, saying his continued incarceration was in the “form of punishment” and the liberty of an individual could not be denied on the basis of “anonymous and unverified allegations”. He has said in his plea that “conclusive findings” have been rendered by the high court on the basis of the documents placed before it in a “sealed envelope” by the CBI, which were neither part of the record nor shown to him, and he was not given an opportunity to rebut the same. He has said that the high court has “erred” in dismissing his bail plea on a mere apprehension that he may influence witnesses, without any supporting material, and on the basis of unverified allegations that do not allege or point anything against him. He has also denied the high court’s finding that INX Media’s former promoters — Indrani and Peter Mukerjea — had met him and “illegal gratification” was paid. Mr. Chidambaram has further said that the case does not relate to an “economic offence” and there was no loss to the public exchequer. He has also denied the high court’s finding that a large amount of money had come into companies owned or controlled by alleged co-conspirator and his son Karti. He has said the other accused in the case, including Mr. Karti, have already been granted bail or interim protection by the courts and it will be “manifestly unjust and illegal” to deny him the relief. The Congress leader has urged the apex court to grant him interim bail till his appeal is decided. 0

INX Media case: Chidambaram seeks bail in SC, says CBI wants to keep him in jail to humiliate him: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/inx-media-case-chidambaram-seeks-bail-in-sc-says-cbi-wants-to-keep-him-in-jail-to-humiliate-him/article29691314.ece [10/15, 19:46] Sekarreporter1: Former finance minister P. Chidambaram on Tuesday sought bail from the Supreme Court in the INX Media corruption case saying the CBI wants to keep him in custody to humiliate him. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Mr. Chidambaram, told the bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi that there were no allegations about the former finance minister or his family members having ever tried to approach or influence any witness in the case. [10/15, 19:46] Sekarreporter1: The lawyers told the apex court that there are no allegations of financial loss or siphoning of funds. They also questioned the findings of the Delhi High Court, which had rejected Mr. Chidambaram’s bail plea on September 30, saying it should not have referred to the merits of the case while deciding a bail petition. The court will hear on Wednesday the arguments of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI. Meanwhile, a trial court on Tuesday allowed the Enforcement Directorate to interrogate Mr. Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case and said that if required, the agency can arrest him. The CBI had on Monday challenged in the apex court the findings of the high court, which had observed while denying bail to the senior Congress leader, that he was not a flight risk and could not tamper with evidence. The high court had decided 74-year-old Chidambaram’s bail petition on three aspects — flight risk, tampering with evidence and influencing of witnesses. On flight risk and tampering with evidence, the high court had ruled in favour of Mr. Chidambaram, while on the third count of influencing witnesses, the verdict had gone against him. The high court had said Mr. Chidambaram was not a “flight risk” and there was no chance of his tampering with evidence but he could influence witnesses if granted bail. Challenging the high court order denying him bail, Mr. Chidambaram had earlier approached the apex court, which issued a notice to the CBI, asking the investigative agency to respond to the plea. Mr. Chidambaram, who is lodged in Tihar Jail here under judicial custody till October 17 in the INX Media corruption case, was arrested by the CBI on August 21. The CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017, alleging irregularities in a Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to the INX Media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007, during Mr. Chidambaram’s tenure as finance minister. Thereafter, the ED lodged a money-laundering case in this regard in 2017. Mr. Chidambaram had challenged the high court’s September 30 order, saying his continued incarceration was in the “form of punishment” and the liberty of an individual could not be denied on the basis of “anonymous and unverified allegations”. He has said in his plea that “conclusive findings” have been rendered by the high court on the basis of the documents placed before it in a “sealed envelope” by the CBI, which were neither part of the record nor shown to him, and he was not given an opportunity to rebut the same. He has said that the high court has “erred” in dismissing his bail plea on a mere apprehension that he may influence witnesses, without any supporting material, and on the basis of unverified allegations that do not allege or point anything against him. He has also denied the high court’s finding that INX Media’s former promoters — Indrani and Peter Mukerjea — had met him and “illegal gratification” was paid. Mr. Chidambaram has further said that the case does not relate to an “economic offence” and there was no loss to the public exchequer. He has also denied the high court’s finding that a large amount of money had come into companies owned or controlled by alleged co-conspirator and his son Karti. He has said the other accused in the case, including Mr. Karti, have already been granted bail or interim protection by the courts and it will be “manifestly unjust and illegal” to deny him the relief. The Congress leader has urged the apex court to grant him interim bail till his appeal is decided.

[10/15, 19:46] Sekarreporter1: INX Media case: Chidambaram seeks bail in SC, says CBI wants to keep him in jail to humiliate him: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/inx-media-case-chidambaram-seeks-bail-in-sc-says-cbi-wants-to-keep-him-in-jail-to-humiliate-him/article29691314.ece [10/15, 19:46] Sekarreporter1: Former finance minister P. Chidambaram on Tuesday sought Read More

Inadvertent release of two Sri Lankan nationals: Madras  high court orders action against erring police officials – A division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order while hearing the habeas corpus petitions filed by the two Sri Lankan nationals, Sanga Sirantha and Mohammed Saffras who sought to be deported to Sri Lanka.  Pursuant to the earlier order of the court, the Ramanathapuram superintendent of police Omprakash Meena appeared before the court on Tuesday. 0

Inadvertent release of two Sri Lankan nationals: Madras high court orders action against erring police officials – A division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order while hearing the habeas corpus petitions filed by the two Sri Lankan nationals, Sanga Sirantha and Mohammed Saffras who sought to be deported to Sri Lanka. Pursuant to the earlier order of the court, the Ramanathapuram superintendent of police Omprakash Meena appeared before the court on Tuesday.

Share on: WhatsApp

[10/15, 12:09] Kalaimani Mhaa: “உங்கள் வீட்டு மருமகளை வரவேற்க அடுத்த வீட்டு மகளை கொன்று விட்டீர்கள்” – ஒவ்வொருவருடைய மனசாட்சியை உலுக்கும் வார்த்தை. இது யாரோ ஒரு ஆளுங்கட்சி பிரமுகர் ஜெயகோபாலுக்காக கூறப்பட்ட வார்த்தை மட்டுமல்ல. இனி வருங்காலத்தில் இவ்வார்த்தை ஒவ்வொரு மனிதருக்கும் சமூக அக்கறையை உணர்த்தும் ஒன்று. நீதிபதி கார்த்திகேயன் அவர்களின் கருத்து இன்றும் கண்ணீர் வடித்துக்கொண்டிருக்கும் சுபஸ்ரீ யின் பெற்றோருக்கு மட்டுமல்ல, அப்பெண்ணின் அகால மரணத்தால் வலியேற்ற என் போன்ற பெற்றவர்களுக்கும் ஆறுதல் தரும் எதிர்மறை சொல். இந்நிகழ்வுகள் கண்டாவது இனி அனைவரும் சமூக அக்கறையுடன் எச்சரிக்கையாக இருக்கவேண்டும். [10/15, 12:09] Sekarreporter1: 🌹🌹 0

[10/15, 12:09] Kalaimani Mhaa: “உங்கள் வீட்டு மருமகளை வரவேற்க அடுத்த வீட்டு மகளை கொன்று விட்டீர்கள்” – ஒவ்வொருவருடைய மனசாட்சியை உலுக்கும் வார்த்தை. இது யாரோ ஒரு ஆளுங்கட்சி பிரமுகர் ஜெயகோபாலுக்காக கூறப்பட்ட வார்த்தை மட்டுமல்ல. இனி வருங்காலத்தில் இவ்வார்த்தை ஒவ்வொரு மனிதருக்கும் சமூக அக்கறையை உணர்த்தும் ஒன்று. நீதிபதி கார்த்திகேயன் அவர்களின் கருத்து இன்றும் கண்ணீர் வடித்துக்கொண்டிருக்கும் சுபஸ்ரீ யின் பெற்றோருக்கு மட்டுமல்ல, அப்பெண்ணின் அகால மரணத்தால் வலியேற்ற என் போன்ற பெற்றவர்களுக்கும் ஆறுதல் தரும் எதிர்மறை சொல். இந்நிகழ்வுகள் கண்டாவது இனி அனைவரும் சமூக அக்கறையுடன் எச்சரிக்கையாக இருக்கவேண்டும். [10/15, 12:09] Sekarreporter1: 🌹🌹

Share on: WhatsApp

[10/14, 19:16] Sekarreporter1: SC gives Centre, States a month to respond to writ petition seeking RTI portals: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-gives-centre-states-a-month-to-respond-to-writ-petition-seeking-rti-portals/article29681677.ece [10/14, 19:16] Sekarreporter1: In August, the NGO, represented by senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, had said that none of the States, except Delhi and Maharashtra, has set up RTI portals. The Central government established an online RTI portal whereby any Indian citizen, including Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), can apply for information under the RTI Act with the desired Ministry or Department under the Central government. An applicant can also pay the requisite fee through online payment in this portal and submit the RTI application, the petition said. The Centre had also requested, via a letter dated December 13, 2013, the various State governments to explore the feasibility of implementing online RTI portals. It had even offered to provide technical support for this purpose through the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to the States. “However, only the States of Maharashtra and Delhi have established their respective online portals for obtaining information from the departments of their respective governments,” the petition pointed out. It said that a person seeking information under the RTI Act of 2005 from any State department is compelled to make a physical application. This has become difficult for NRIs. “The provision of an online web portal will help the Indian citizens, including the Non-Resident Indians by speedy dissemination of information requested, which in turn would only help in achieving the aim of the RTI laws of bringing transparency in administration,” the petition said. It reminded the court of Section 7(1) of the 2005 Act, which provides for disclosure of information if it concerns the life or liberty of a person. Such dissemination of the information would be easier sought through an online application, the petition said. 0

[10/14, 19:16] Sekarreporter1: SC gives Centre, States a month to respond to writ petition seeking RTI portals: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-gives-centre-states-a-month-to-respond-to-writ-petition-seeking-rti-portals/article29681677.ece [10/14, 19:16] Sekarreporter1: In August, the NGO, represented by senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, had said that none of the States, except Delhi and Maharashtra, has set up RTI portals. The Central government established an online RTI portal whereby any Indian citizen, including Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), can apply for information under the RTI Act with the desired Ministry or Department under the Central government. An applicant can also pay the requisite fee through online payment in this portal and submit the RTI application, the petition said. The Centre had also requested, via a letter dated December 13, 2013, the various State governments to explore the feasibility of implementing online RTI portals. It had even offered to provide technical support for this purpose through the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to the States. “However, only the States of Maharashtra and Delhi have established their respective online portals for obtaining information from the departments of their respective governments,” the petition pointed out. It said that a person seeking information under the RTI Act of 2005 from any State department is compelled to make a physical application. This has become difficult for NRIs. “The provision of an online web portal will help the Indian citizens, including the Non-Resident Indians by speedy dissemination of information requested, which in turn would only help in achieving the aim of the RTI laws of bringing transparency in administration,” the petition said. It reminded the court of Section 7(1) of the 2005 Act, which provides for disclosure of information if it concerns the life or liberty of a person. Such dissemination of the information would be easier sought through an online application, the petition said.

[10/14, 19:16] Sekarreporter1: SC gives Centre, States a month to respond to writ petition seeking RTI portals: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-gives-centre-states-a-month-to-respond-to-writ-petition-seeking-rti-portals/article29681677.ece [10/14, 19:16] Sekarreporter1: In August, the NGO, represented by senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, had said that Read More

INX Media case: Delhi court reserves order on ED’s plea to arrest P. Chidambaram: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/inx-media-case-delhi-court-reserves-order-on-eds-plea-to-arrest-p-chidambaram/article29681665.ece [10/14, 18:40] Sekarreporter1: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, told a special judge that there is a finding by the Supreme Court that custodial interrogation of Mr. Chidambaram is necessary A Delhi court on Monday reserved order on the Enforcement Directorate’s plea seeking to arrest and interrogate former finance minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case. “I will pass orders on the applications tomorrow,” special judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar said. [10/14, 18:40] Sekarreporter1: At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, told Mr. Kuhar that there is a finding by the Supreme Court that custodial interrogation of Mr. Chidambaram is necessary. Money laundering is a separate offence, Mr. Mehta said and moved an application for Mr. Chidambaram’s arrest and remand. The plea was vehemently opposed by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Chidambaram, who said that the CBI has already taken remand and ED has no ground since the offence is the same. “CBI has already sought his custody for investigating payment and companies abroad, which the ED wants to probe now,” he said. Mr. Sibal urged the court to recall its order by which Tihar authorities were directed to produce Mr. Chidambaram before it. Mr. Chidambaram is in judicial custody till October 17 in the INX Media corruption case filed by the CBI. The ED had on Friday moved a plea seeking production warrant of the 74-year old senior Congress leader. The probe agency said in its plea that it requires custodial interrogation of Mr. Chidambaram in the money laundering case related to INX Media. 0

INX Media case: Delhi court reserves order on ED’s plea to arrest P. Chidambaram: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/inx-media-case-delhi-court-reserves-order-on-eds-plea-to-arrest-p-chidambaram/article29681665.ece [10/14, 18:40] Sekarreporter1: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, told a special judge that there is a finding by the Supreme Court that custodial interrogation of Mr. Chidambaram is necessary A Delhi court on Monday reserved order on the Enforcement Directorate’s plea seeking to arrest and interrogate former finance minister P. Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case. “I will pass orders on the applications tomorrow,” special judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar said. [10/14, 18:40] Sekarreporter1: At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, told Mr. Kuhar that there is a finding by the Supreme Court that custodial interrogation of Mr. Chidambaram is necessary. Money laundering is a separate offence, Mr. Mehta said and moved an application for Mr. Chidambaram’s arrest and remand. The plea was vehemently opposed by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Chidambaram, who said that the CBI has already taken remand and ED has no ground since the offence is the same. “CBI has already sought his custody for investigating payment and companies abroad, which the ED wants to probe now,” he said. Mr. Sibal urged the court to recall its order by which Tihar authorities were directed to produce Mr. Chidambaram before it. Mr. Chidambaram is in judicial custody till October 17 in the INX Media corruption case filed by the CBI. The ED had on Friday moved a plea seeking production warrant of the 74-year old senior Congress leader. The probe agency said in its plea that it requires custodial interrogation of Mr. Chidambaram in the money laundering case related to INX Media.

[10/14, 18:40] Sekarreporter1: INX Media case: Delhi court reserves order on ED’s plea to arrest P. Chidambaram: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/inx-media-case-delhi-court-reserves-order-on-eds-plea-to-arrest-p-chidambaram/article29681665.ece [10/14, 18:40] Sekarreporter1: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, told a special judge that Read More

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR  C.R.P.(NPD)No.3317 of 2019  V.Manimegalai … Petitioner  Vs.—-14.In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion  that, the reasons cited by the Registrar of Small Causes Court, which is  impugned herein, for returning the papers by not entertaining the  application (RLTOP), is unsustainable and therefore, this Court feels  that, a suitable direction can be given to the Rent Court/Small Causes  Court Registry to number the RLTOP, if it is otherwise in order.  15.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is ordered and the  Registrar of Small Causes Court, Chennai is hereby directed to  entertain the RLTOP.Sr.No.55813 of 2019 and to proceed in  accordance with law, if it is otherwise in order. No costs.  16.The Registry is directed to return the original impugned  proceedings filed before this Court in this revision to the learned  counsel for the petitioner after due acknowledgment.  7/914.In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion  that, the reasons cited by the Registrar of Small Causes Court, which is  impugned herein, for returning the papers by not entertaining the  application (RLTOP), is unsustainable and therefore, this Court feels  that, a suitable direction can be given to the Rent Court/Small Causes  Court Registry to number the RLTOP, if it is otherwise in order.  15.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is ordered and the  Registrar of Small Causes Court, Chennai is hereby directed to  entertain the RLTOP.Sr.No.55813 of 2019 and to proceed in  accordance with law, if it is otherwise in order. No costs.  16.The Registry is directed to return the original impugned  proceedings filed before this Court in this revision to the learned  counsel for the petitioner after due acknowledgment.  7/9 0

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR C.R.P.(NPD)No.3317 of 2019 V.Manimegalai … Petitioner Vs.—-14.In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, the reasons cited by the Registrar of Small Causes Court, which is impugned herein, for returning the papers by not entertaining the application (RLTOP), is unsustainable and therefore, this Court feels that, a suitable direction can be given to the Rent Court/Small Causes Court Registry to number the RLTOP, if it is otherwise in order. 15.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is ordered and the Registrar of Small Causes Court, Chennai is hereby directed to entertain the RLTOP.Sr.No.55813 of 2019 and to proceed in accordance with law, if it is otherwise in order. No costs. 16.The Registry is directed to return the original impugned proceedings filed before this Court in this revision to the learned counsel for the petitioner after due acknowledgment. 7/914.In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, the reasons cited by the Registrar of Small Causes Court, which is impugned herein, for returning the papers by not entertaining the application (RLTOP), is unsustainable and therefore, this Court feels that, a suitable direction can be given to the Rent Court/Small Causes Court Registry to number the RLTOP, if it is otherwise in order. 15.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is ordered and the Registrar of Small Causes Court, Chennai is hereby directed to entertain the RLTOP.Sr.No.55813 of 2019 and to proceed in accordance with law, if it is otherwise in order. No costs. 16.The Registry is directed to return the original impugned proceedings filed before this Court in this revision to the learned counsel for the petitioner after due acknowledgment. 7/9

Share on: WhatsApp

A Special CBI Court at Rouse Avenue Court Complex in Delhi is hearing the application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking custody of former Union Minister P Chidambaram. The ED had moved the Special CBI Court last week seeking Chidambaram’s custodial interrogation. Special CBI Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar had then ordered the production of P Chidambaram before Court. ED had sought his custodial interrogation on the ground that it was necessary to help uncover the laundering of proceeds of crime which have been parked in foreign countries. Live updates of today’s hearing follow: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Enforcement Directorate begins his submissions. “There is a finding by the Supreme Court that custodial interrogation of P Chidambaram is necessary”, Mehta moves application for P Chidambaram’s arrest and remand. Arguments by Kapil Sibal: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal objects with respect to the procedure adopted by the agency. Enforcement Directorate cannot arrest him and seek his custody, Sibal says. “Yes, the Supreme Court said that they could arrest him. But they chose not to do so.” There cannot be a remand after the 15 day period is over when the act under question here forms part of the same transaction which CBI is investigating. The FIR was registered by CBI and ECIR was registered by ED based on that. There is no separate transaction. As long as the transaction is same, the offences may be different, there cannot be an extension of remand beyond 15 days. P Chidambaram could not have been brought to Court in this manner. It is contrary to law. Production could be done only in case of inquiry or trial. Investigation is neither inquiry or trial. Production of a person for arrest is unknown to law. Sibal reads section 267 CrPC to support his contention. No application could have been filed under Section 267 for his production before Court. “Other proceeding” in section 267 CrPC cannot be read to mean “investigation”. Investigating Agency cannot use the aegis of Court to seek Chidambaram’s arrest when no proceedings are pending before it. Even the Delhi High Court Rules prohibit production of an accused in this fashion. Sibal refers to a remand application filed by the CBI earlier in the case to state that both CBI and ED are investigating the same transaction. The moment money is given as quid pro quo, if it is a corrupt practice, it is proceeds of crime. If you look at the ECIR and FIR, it is verbatim. This application for remand does not lie. He could not have been called from Tihar. Even the order passed by the CBI Court while dismissing the earlier surrender application had recorded that the surrender could not be accepted since nothing was pending before the Court. Sibal urges Court to withdraw and cancel the production warrant. Sibal points out that production warrant was ex parte without issuing notice. Arguments by SG Tushar Mehta: When we start with wrong questions, we end up with wrong arguments, Mehta. Money laundering in an independent and standalone offence. Money laundering not part of same transaction. It is a separate offence. The root may be the predicate offence. The law recognizes that Section 3,4 PMLA are separate and distinct offence. Mehta cites cases to support his claim. Chidambaram was arrested by the CBI in connection with the INX Media case on August 21, a day after the Delhi High Court denied his anticipatory bail plea. Subsequently, Chidambaram’s anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the Supreme Court. After the expiry of the maximum time period of police custody, the Court had remanded Chidambaram to judicial custody on September 5. On September 13, Chidambaram’s surrender application in connection with the ED case was dismissed by the CBI Court after the agency contended that it did want his custodial interrogation at that time. The ED had then clarified that it would move the Court for Chidambaram’s custodial interrogation at the appropriate time. Chidambaram’s regular bail plea in the CBI case was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on September 30. An appeal against the dismissal is presently pending before the Supreme Court. This matter will be taken up on October 15. Chidambaram’s judicial custody ends on October 17. The INX Media case pertains to the alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance to INX Media at the time when P Chidambaram was the Finance Minister. It is the case of the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that P Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram received illegal gratification from INX Media owners Peter and Indrani Mukherjea for the clearance. 0

A Special CBI Court at Rouse Avenue Court Complex in Delhi is hearing the application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking custody of former Union Minister P Chidambaram. The ED had moved the Special CBI Court last week seeking Chidambaram’s custodial interrogation. Special CBI Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar had then ordered the production of P Chidambaram before Court. ED had sought his custodial interrogation on the ground that it was necessary to help uncover the laundering of proceeds of crime which have been parked in foreign countries. Live updates of today’s hearing follow: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Enforcement Directorate begins his submissions. “There is a finding by the Supreme Court that custodial interrogation of P Chidambaram is necessary”, Mehta moves application for P Chidambaram’s arrest and remand. Arguments by Kapil Sibal: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal objects with respect to the procedure adopted by the agency. Enforcement Directorate cannot arrest him and seek his custody, Sibal says. “Yes, the Supreme Court said that they could arrest him. But they chose not to do so.” There cannot be a remand after the 15 day period is over when the act under question here forms part of the same transaction which CBI is investigating. The FIR was registered by CBI and ECIR was registered by ED based on that. There is no separate transaction. As long as the transaction is same, the offences may be different, there cannot be an extension of remand beyond 15 days. P Chidambaram could not have been brought to Court in this manner. It is contrary to law. Production could be done only in case of inquiry or trial. Investigation is neither inquiry or trial. Production of a person for arrest is unknown to law. Sibal reads section 267 CrPC to support his contention. No application could have been filed under Section 267 for his production before Court. “Other proceeding” in section 267 CrPC cannot be read to mean “investigation”. Investigating Agency cannot use the aegis of Court to seek Chidambaram’s arrest when no proceedings are pending before it. Even the Delhi High Court Rules prohibit production of an accused in this fashion. Sibal refers to a remand application filed by the CBI earlier in the case to state that both CBI and ED are investigating the same transaction. The moment money is given as quid pro quo, if it is a corrupt practice, it is proceeds of crime. If you look at the ECIR and FIR, it is verbatim. This application for remand does not lie. He could not have been called from Tihar. Even the order passed by the CBI Court while dismissing the earlier surrender application had recorded that the surrender could not be accepted since nothing was pending before the Court. Sibal urges Court to withdraw and cancel the production warrant. Sibal points out that production warrant was ex parte without issuing notice. Arguments by SG Tushar Mehta: When we start with wrong questions, we end up with wrong arguments, Mehta. Money laundering in an independent and standalone offence. Money laundering not part of same transaction. It is a separate offence. The root may be the predicate offence. The law recognizes that Section 3,4 PMLA are separate and distinct offence. Mehta cites cases to support his claim. Chidambaram was arrested by the CBI in connection with the INX Media case on August 21, a day after the Delhi High Court denied his anticipatory bail plea. Subsequently, Chidambaram’s anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the Supreme Court. After the expiry of the maximum time period of police custody, the Court had remanded Chidambaram to judicial custody on September 5. On September 13, Chidambaram’s surrender application in connection with the ED case was dismissed by the CBI Court after the agency contended that it did want his custodial interrogation at that time. The ED had then clarified that it would move the Court for Chidambaram’s custodial interrogation at the appropriate time. Chidambaram’s regular bail plea in the CBI case was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on September 30. An appeal against the dismissal is presently pending before the Supreme Court. This matter will be taken up on October 15. Chidambaram’s judicial custody ends on October 17. The INX Media case pertains to the alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance to INX Media at the time when P Chidambaram was the Finance Minister. It is the case of the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that P Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram received illegal gratification from INX Media owners Peter and Indrani Mukherjea for the clearance.

A Special CBI Court at Rouse Avenue Court Complex in Delhi is hearing the application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking custody of former Union Minister P Chidambaram. The ED had moved the Special CBI Read More

#Aadhaar- Social Media linkage: Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking linking of Aadhaar with social media profiles. Court notes that a similar petition is pending before the Madras High Court. “Everything does not need to come to the Supreme Court”, SC says 0

#Aadhaar- Social Media linkage: Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking linking of Aadhaar with social media profiles. Court notes that a similar petition is pending before the Madras High Court. “Everything does not need to come to the Supreme Court”, SC says

Share on: WhatsApp

CALL ME