News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
  Administrator vs. Swarn Theater (Supreme Court)
 NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Supreme Court) (Review Petition)
 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 How investing in NPS can help you save tax
 Barnala Steel Industries Ltd., Village Vehlana, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar. Vs. JCIT, Range-2, Muzaffarnagar.
 Athena Energy Venture Pvt. Ltd.,Second Floor, Vijaya Building, Vs. DCIT Circle – 2 (1) New Delhi
 Balwant Singh Bindra, Prop. M/s Bindra Tyres, Shop No.178, Janta Market, Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. Vs. ITO, Ward-63(4), New Delhi.
 Seema Jain 12, Dayanand Vihar Delhi Vs. ACIT Circle – 59 (1) New Delhi
 Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. JSW Steel Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Paresh Nathalal Chauhan vs. State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)

2G scam: Unitech Wireless's Chandra says CBI has no evidence against him
September, 07th 2011

Unitech Wireless' Managing Director Sanjay Chandra today told the Supreme Court that the CBI has failed to make out a prima-facie case against him in the 2G scam as it did not have documentary evidence to support the offences mentioned in the charge sheet.

"In this case, there is no prima-facie case at all," his counsel and senior advocate Ram Jethmalani submitted before a bench comprising justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu.

"There is no document to suggest I have cheated. I have not used any document which is forged. I have not committed any offence under section 420 (cheating) of Indian Penal Code. Throughout the charge sheet ingredients of these sections are not mentioned," he said while submitting that Chandra has been in illegal custody.

Jethmalani said that the businessman was wrongly taken into custody and had to go through the ordeal of approaching the courts for bail which was rejected.

"Even if a prima facie case exists, bail is the rule and denial of it is an exception and exception is based on the record of misuse of liberty granted by courts," the senior advocate said.

He argued that Chandra had no criminal past and had all along cooperated with the CBI during the investigation in the case.

He said by arresting the businessman, not only his liberty has been violated but when a person is arrested, he is virtually "assassinated in the eyes of the society."

Jethmalani said when there were 17 accused in the case, how could Chandra be charged with the offence of conspiracy.

The court was hearing bail pleas of Chandra and Swan Telecom's Director Vinod Goenka. They have alleged that the CBI was acting in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner in the 2G spectrum case.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting