19 July,2018 06:33 PM IST | New Delhi | IANS
Karti Chidambaram
The CBI on Friday filed a charge sheet against 18 people in Aircel-Maxis deal case including former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and his son Karti. The agency filed the charge sheet before Special Judge O.P. Saini who listed the matter fore hearing on July 31.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate are investigating Karti Chidambaram's alleged role in getting Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance for the Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006 when his father was the Union Finance Minister.
"We have filed a charge sheet in Aircel-Maxis case naming 18 persons, including P. Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram," a CBI official said.
The charge sheet also named two companies -- Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt Ltd (ASCPL) and Chess Management Services Pvt Ltd (CMSPL) -- under various provisions.
ALSO READ
Manipur violence: 7 more arrested in connection to arson, property damage cases
‘India’s filled with talent, but Australia not fragile’
Glad that FM read Congress manifesto after election results, says Chidambaram
Wind is behind sails of INDIA bloc: P Chidambaram on by-poll results
Who insults parliamentary procedures on daily basis, not us: Sibal
On August 29, 2014, the CBI had filed a charge sheet in the case alleging that between July 2004 and September 2008, Dayanidhi Maran, as Minister in the UPA-I government, used his influence to help Malaysian businessman T.A. Ananda Krishnan buy Aircel by coercing its owner Sivasankaran to part with his stake.
Sivasankaran alleged that Maran favoured the Krishnan-owned Maxis Group in the takeover of his company. In return, he alleged, Maxis made investments through Astro Network, a sister concern, in Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd (SDTPL), stated to be owned by the Maran family.
However, a special court had dropped charges against former Communications Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi and others in the alleged kickback of Rs 742 crore in the Aircel-Maxis deal, saying that the "perception or suspicion" was not backed by concrete evidence.