Aircel deal: Marans challenge CBI court's jurisdiction

Aircel deal: Marans challenge CBI court's jurisdiction

Aircel deal: Marans challenge CBI court's jurisdiction

Former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Kalanithi on Monday moved separate petitions in a special CBI court, challenging its jurisdiction to hear the Aircel-Maxis deal case in which they were summoned as accused along with six others.  

Admitting the petitions filed by the Maran brothers, the special court asked the CBI to submit its reply on August 3.

This comes days after the Supreme Court refused to intervene with the special CBI court order summoning Maran brothers as accused in the case and asked them to question the “jurisdictional aspect” before the special court itself.

Following the apex court directive, the Maran brothers appeared before the special CBI court on March 2 and filed separate petitions pleading for grant of bail. 

Special CBI Judge O P Saini, who was scheduled to hear the bail applications of the two accused on Monday, said he will hear the arguments on Maran brothers’ bail plea along with their petitions challenging the jurisdiction of this court to try the Aircel-maxi deal case on August 3.

The CBI, however, had filed it response to the bail applications filed by Maran brothers.
While an authorised representative of Chennai-based Sun Direct TV Private Limited was present in the court when Maran brothers filed petitions challenging the court’s jurisdiction, appearance of other accused was awaited despite summons already being issued to them.

The court issued fresh summons to Malaysia-based business tycoon T Ananda Krishnan and a top executive of the Maxis group, Augustus Ralph Marshall, seeking their appearance in the court after the CBI informed it that the summons issued to them earlier could not be served. 

 The court also issued fresh summons to Malaysia-based firm Maxis Communication Berhad and UK-based Astro All Asia Networks.

Senior public prosecutor K K Goel told the court that the CBI required at least three months time to serve the summons as the accused were based in other countries.

“We are helpless. We need time. It (serving of summons) will be done through diplomatic channels,” he said, pleading the court to give some time for serving summons.

DH Newsletter Privacy Policy Get top news in your inbox daily
Comments (+)