New Delhi, August 14: Former finance minister P Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram will not be able to travel abroad as the Supreme Court has asked him to join the probe initiated against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in INX media case. The apex court set aside the stay by Madras high court on a look out notice issued against him by the CBI. Also Read - Not Justice For Sushant Singh Rajput, It's Justice For Gupteshwar Pandey: Rhea Chakraborty's Lawyer Reacts to Bihar DGP Taking VRS
What is the case? Also Read - SSR Case: Rhea Chakraborty's Judicial Custody Ends Today, Actor to Virtually Appear Before The Court
- Karti Chidambaram is accused of getting commissions through a company associated with him, allegedly to scuttle a probe by the revenue department against INX Media, then controlled by Peter and Indrani Mukerjea.
- CBI alleged that INX Media got an approval of receiving Rs 4.62 crore investment from Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB). But the company received Rs 305 crore from two companies based in Mauritius. The companies paid a premium of Rs 800 per share. It is alleged that officials probing the misappropriation were hushed up at the behest of Karti, whose father was the finance minister. (Also Read: Madras HC Stays ‘Look Out’ Circular Issued Against Karti Chidambaram, 4 Others)
The Lookout Notice Also Read - Ice Cream Maker Kwality Ltd, Its Directors Booked by CBI in Rs 1,400 Crore Bank Fraud Case
- CBI had issued summons to Karti Chidambaram on two occasions to join the probe. However, he didn’t turn up– once in Delhi, once in Chennai. The CBI issued a lookout notice against him last week.
- Karti Chidambaram moved to Madras high court and secured a stay on the lookout notice on August 10.
What the Supreme Court ruled
- Supreme Court overruled the Madras high court order of stay. The court said that Karti Chidambaram will have to join the probe in Chennai or in Delhi.
- The court also banned his foreign journeys until CBI finishes its probe against him.
- When Chidambaram’s lawyers argued that he had no intentions to go abroad, the court said it would not commit past mistakes. The court said that it had allowed accused to fly abroad, and they have not returned.