A special court today reserved its order for September 6 on applications filed by former Telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Kalanithi Maran, challenging its jurisdiction to try the Aircel-Maxis deal case in which they have been summoned as accused.
The court, which was scheduled to pass its order today on the bail pleas of Marans and others in two seperate cases filed by the CBI and Enforrecement Directorate (ED), deferred the matter for later hearings as it decided to deal with the issue of its jurisdiction first.
Marans have challenged the jurisdiction of the special 2G court in both the cases lodged by the ED and the CBI.
"Arguments on applications filed by accused challenging jurisdiction of this court heard and concluded. Put up the matter for orders on all applications challenging jurisdiction of this court on September 6," Special Judge O P Saini said.
The court reserved its order in both the cases filed by ED and CBI.
During the hearing today, the Marans submitted before the court that the Aircel-Maxis dispute was a private matter and not part of the alleged 2G spectrum scam.
"Therefore, the court designated to deal exclusively with the 2G spectrum allocation scam could not hear the matter," the counsel appearing for Marans said, adding that no loss was caused to the public exchequer by the deal.
Dayanidhi Maran, Kalanithi Maran and four others had moved their bail pleas in the money laundering case before the court which has been kept pending.
Besides Maran brothers, Kalanithi's wife Kavery Kalanithi and K Shanmugam, Managing Director of South Asia FM Ltd (SAFL) have also moved their bail applications in the ED case.
The court had on February 27 summoned all the four accused persons and two firms - SAFL and Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd (SDTPL) - as accused in the money laundering case.
The summons were issued by the court while taking cognisance of ED's charge sheet against the six accused under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
During the arguments earlier, ED's special prosecutor N K Matta had claimed that there were money transactions which allegedly showed that SDTPL and SAFL had received Rs 742.58 crore as "proceeds of crime" from Mauritius-based firms in the Aircel-Maxis deal.
The agency had claimed that "proceeds of crime" amounting
to Rs 549.03 crore and Rs 193.55 crore were received respectively by SDTPL and SAFL, allegedly controlled by co- accused Kalanithi Maran through various Mauritius-based entities.
The ED prosecutor had referred to the details of money transactions between these firms and alleged that SDTPL had received Rs 549.03 crore from Mauritius-based firm M/s South Asia Entertainment Holding Ltd.
ED had alleged before the court that Dayanidhi had generated funds worth Rs 742.58 crore through illegal means.
It had alleged that Dayanidhi had obtained "illegal gratification" of Rs 742.58 crore and the money was "parked" in the firms of Kalanithi by projecting it as untainted.
In the case filed by CBI, the Maran brothers, Malaysian business tycoon T Ananda Krishnan, Augustus Ralph Marshall and and four companies -- Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd, Maxis Communication Berhad, South Asia Entertainment Holding Ltd and Astro All Asia Network PLC -- were made accused.
CBI has chargesheeted for the offences punishable under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC and under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The agency had earlier told the court that five of the eight accused were based in different countries like Malaysia, Mauritius and the UK while the other three were living in Chennai.
The CBI had filed the charge sheet in the case containing the names of 151 prosecution witnesses and a set of 655 documents on which it has relied upon during its probe.
CBI had alleged in the court that Dayanidhi Maran had "pressured" and "forced" Chennai-based telecom promoter C Sivasankaran to sell his stakes in Aircel and two subsidiary firms to Malaysian firm Maxis Group in 2006.
It argued that the case involves investigation in foreign countries and there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused named in the charge sheet.
