Karti tweeted today to announce that he has tested positive for the virus and that his symptoms are mild so has quarantined himself at home for Coronavirus. He however advised people who had come in contact with him over the past few days to follow prescribed Covid protocols.
The court said after hearing the counsel appearing for both sides, the instant application for withdrawal of the amount in question is allowed. In February, the top court took into consideration previous orders which allowed Karti to travel abroad, and then allowed him to travel to the UK and France between February 14, and March 1, 2020.
Karti said the government should be complimented for its efforts. He further spoke about complaints that people, being quarantined over coronavirus suspicion, have been kept in 'substandard' facilities under 'unhygienic' conditions.
The CBI and the ED had alleged that former finance minister P Chidambaram during the United Progressive Alliance regime, granted approval to the deal beyond his capacity benefitting certain persons, and received kickbacks.
The matter relates to the alleged non-disclosure of Rs 1.35 crore received by Karti Chidambaram, and his wife Srinidhi in cash for sale of land at Muttukadu near Chennai
P Chidambaram’s case will be next heard on September 19 in Rouse Avenue court.
Investigating agencies, ED and CBI have sought adjournment, asking the matter to be listed for first week of October.
Accepting the CBI's argument that he should be sent to judicial custody, the CBI court said that Chidambaram will remain in judicial custody till September 19 even as the 74-year-old leader has already spent 15 days in CBI custody after he was arrested by the CBI on the night of 21 August.
The CBI is probing as to how Chidambaram, who was the finance minister in 2006, granted FIPB approval to a foreign firm when only the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) was empowered to do it.
Rejecting Chidambaram's plea, the apex court said that 'granting anticipatory bail at the initial stage may frustrate the investigation' adding that it is 'not a case fit to grant pre-arrest bail'.
