Karti can’t go abroad till graft case on: SC
With the CBI claiming that there is enough material against Karti Chidambaram, son of former finance minister P. Chidambaram, in the INX Media corruption case, the Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant him permission to go abroad.
Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, submitted documents in a sealed envelope to a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and said, “There is a good, cogent reason for the issuance of a look-out circular (LOC) against him. It is not a simple case or that of one company but it involves jugglery of accounts and properties abroad.”
The apex court posted the hearing in the matter for September 11, accepting Mr Mehta’s submission that Karti Chidambaram should not be allowed to travel abroad at this stage.
On August 14, the apex court had stayed a Madras high court order
Continued from Page 1 allowing Karti Chidambaram to go abroad and made it clear that he will have to appear before the CBI for questioning. Subsequently, however, he was quizzed at the CBI headquarters in Delhi on August 23 and 28.
Karti Chidambaram did not appear before the CBI in response to summons issued on June 15 and July 4 and moved the high court to quash the FIR.
On June 16, the CBI had issued an LOC to prevent Karti Chidambaram from leaving India. On August 10, the high court stayed the LOC and allowed him to go abroad on August 16 and return on August 31. The CBI filed an appeal in the apex court against this order.
The CBI registered an FIR against Karti Chidambaram and others on May 15, 2017, for alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance granted to INX Media for receiving overseas funds in 2007 to the tune of `305 crore, when his father was the Union finance minister.
Appearing for Karti Chidambaram, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium submitted, “What is the subject matter of enquiry is not me but my father who happened to be the then finance minister giving FIPB approvals to a company in 2007. It is alleged that one of the conditions had been violated.”