No relief to Karti in Muttukadu property case

Initially, Justice Anita Sumanth, before whom the plea moved by Karti and his wife seeking to restrain the special judge from framing charges against them came up recused herself from the case. The judge decided based on the objection raised by IT Department counsels that she had represented Advantage Strategic Private Limited from where the documents were seized remained the basis for the cases initiated against the petitioners.

Thereafter, senior counsel KTS Tulsi made an urgent mention before Justice P Rajamanickam. But during the hearing that transpired, the IT counsels submitted that even the crime numbers mentioned by the petitioners are incorrect. The judge also set aside senior counsel Nalini Chidambaram’s submission that the Chief Justice had directed the registry to list the matter before this court.

“Where is the order passed by the Chief Justice. Without such order how can I entertain the plea. The petition has been listed before this court since you made an urgent mention. I was not aware of the facts of the case. That apart, standing counsels for the department are raising several objections which have to be rectified,” Justice Rajamanickam said while refusing to offer any relief

Following this, another mention was made before the Chief Justice seeking for a hearing on January 20, a day before the special court is scheduled to hear the plea. To this, the CJ asked them to make a representation to the registrar judicial.