Chennai: The Madras High Court Monday refused to stay attachment orders passed by Enforcement Directorate of assets worth Rs 742.58 crore in the name of former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his businessman brother Kalanithi and other family members in connection with its money laundering probe in the Aircel-Maxis deal.
The Court directed Dandapani, the counsel for Directorate of Enforcement to file a counter on the petitions filed by Sun TV Network Limited and Kal Communications Private Limited.
The agency, which has questioned the Maran brothers more than once in the last few months, issued the attachment order on April 1 under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice M Satyanarayanan, after hearing Supreme Court senior counsel Kapil Sibal and P S Raman, refused to stay the attachment proceedings and directed the counsel for ED to file Counter and listed the matter to April 29.
Among the assets attached are a huge amount of fixed deposits and mutual funds held largely by Sun TV MD Kalanithi. Some assets of Kalanithi's wife Kaveri have also been attached.
The individual assets include FDs held by Dayanidhi and others worth Rs 7.47 crore, FD worth Rs 100 crore and mutual funds worth Rs 2.78 crore held by Kalanithi. His wife's FDs worth Rs 1.30 crore and mutual funds of Rs 1.78 crore were also put under attachment.
The attachment order of the properties was made on the case filed by CBI on September 20, 2011, alleging illegal gratification amounting to Rs 742.58 crore by Dayanidhi Maran under the guise of investments in Sun Direct Television Private Limited and South Asia FM Limited companies.
The Sun TV and Kal Communications in their petitions contended that the properties were purchased much before the alleged period of crime.
Dandapani submitted before the court that there is already an order in force passed by the apex court to the effect that no other courts should pass any orders which would impede the investigation to be carried out by CBI and ED as the case is monitored by them.
Kapil Sibal and P S Raman submitted that there is no connection between the order passed by the Supreme Court and this case.
