Delhi High Court Stays Trial Against P. Chidambaram in Aircel-Maxis Money Laundering Case

-

The Delhi High Court recently stayed the trial proceedings against Congress leader and former Union Minister P. Chidambaram in a money laundering case connected to the Aircel-Maxis deal. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while issuing notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), stated, “I will pass a detailed order,” and stayed the proceedings until the next hearing.

Chidambaram challenged the trial court’s order, which took cognizance of the ED’s complaint against him and his son, Karti Chidambaram. His legal team argued that prosecution sanction was mandatory before cognizance could be taken.

The case revolves around alleged irregularities in the ₹3,500 crore Aircel-Maxis deal during Chidambaram's tenure as Union Finance Minister, particularly concerning Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approvals.

For trusted legal advice and representation from one of the best lawyers in Delhi, reach out to:

Address: 107-B, Vikrant Enclave, Mayapuri, New Delhi

Mobile/WhatsApp: 9136273395

Email: advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com

Website: www.mishraandassociates.com

I am a practicing advocate at the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court. Your comments & suggestion are most welcome. Write me advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com or WA https://wa.me/919136273395?text=Hi

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Are Major Indian Universities Named After Nehru and Indira Gandhi?

-
Image
Questioning the Naming of National Institutions It is worth reflecting on why some of India’s most prominent universities, such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), bear the names of these political leaders. The academic credentials of Jawaharlal Nehru, while respectable, were not extraordinary. Nehru studied at Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge, earning an honours degree in natural science, and later qualified as a barrister in London, passing his exams “with neither glory nor ignominy”[1][4]. His educational journey, though privileged, did not set him apart as a scholar of exceptional distinction. Indira Gandhi, despite her influential role in Indian politics, did not complete a university degree. This stands in stark contrast to many young men and women from less privileged backgrounds across India who, despite significant hardships, manage to complete their graduation and post-graduation[6][9]. Whom Should We Celebrate in Acad...
Read more

The Untold Story of J&K’s Accession – Facts Beyond the Textbooks

-
Image
  By Advocate Ganesh Mishra,                                Founder, Mishra and Associates,  New Delhi advocateganeshmishra@gmail.com www.advocateganeshmishra.in Mob +91-9136273395 Introduction The accession of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) to India in 1947 remains one of the most significant and debated chapters in Indian history. While official narratives have often focused on the events following the Pakistani tribal invasion, a closer look at historical records and testimonies reveals a more nuanced story-one that challenges many popular perceptions and raises important questions about political decisions at the highest level. The Maharaja’s Dilemma and Early Steps Toward India Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of J&K, faced a complex situation in the months leading up to independence. With partition violence raging and his state’s Muslim-majority demography, he initially sough...
Read more

You May Lose Your Cheque Bounce Case If Your Legal Notice Is Defective: Supreme Court’s Clear Warning

-
Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Omnibus Demand Notices Under Section 138 NI Act: What Cheque Dishonour Victims Must Know In a significant judgment dated December 12, 2023, the Supreme Court of India in Upasana Mishra v. Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (Criminal Appeal No. 3786 of 2023) has clarified the legal requirements for demand notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This ruling is a crucial development for anyone who has faced the frustration and financial loss caused by cheque dishonour. Facts of the Case The appellant, Ms. Upasana Mishra, issued a legal demand notice to the respondent company after a cheque was dishonoured. The notice demanded a lump sum amount of ₹6,50,000 which included: - The cheque amount (not specifically stated), - Interest at 12% per annum from the date of dishonour, - Damages of ₹50,000 per month, - Notice charges of ₹5,500. The notice did not clearly specify the exact cheque amount separately but made an omnibus demand com...
Read more