The founder of Aircel, Sivasankaran, moves the court of Madras, challenging the circle of vigilance.
CHENNAI: Aircraft founder and serial entrepreneur C Sivasankaran has approached Higher court of madras challenging a notice of surveillance issued against you by the foreign regional registration officer (FRRO), Immigration Office, in connection with a bank loan scam of Rs 600crore related to IDBI Bank.
Admitting the statement presented by Sivasankaran, who claims to be a Seychelles national and an ambassador of the Republic of Seychelles, Judge AD Jagadish Chandra directed the Union's Ministry of the Interior, the CBI and the Compliance Directorate (ED) to submit Your answer two weeks.
According to the petitioner who claims to hold a diplomatic passport, the CBI registered an FIR on April 13, 2018 according to the instructions issued by the main oversight commission that requires the agency to investigate the sanction of loans to WinWind Oy, Finland. and Axcel Sunshine Limited by the IDBI Bank managers in violation of the guidelines and, therefore, caused an erroneous loss of more than Rs 600 crore to the bank.
The petitioner's name was erroneously included in the FIR causing untold damage to his reputation and to the diplomatic relationship between Seychelles and India. His name has been included as C Sivasankaran, chairman of Siva group of companies, petitioner's counsel Vijayan Subramanian said.
The petitioner is not a director, shareholder, employee or president of any of the Siva Group of Companies. He stopped being director of the company in 2008, he added.
Sivasankaran also stated that he had never been associated with Axcel Sunshine Limited at any time. He stated that, although he was wrongly included in the FIR, he cooperated fully with the investigation and honored the summons issued by the CBI.
Meanwhile, the petitioner had planned to travel to Italy on January 27 and had a valid visa for it. However, when the petitioner reported at the check-in counter at Chennai International Airport, he was not allowed to continue. The authority informed him that there is a circular gazebo about him and the petitioner can not leave the country, said the lawyer.
The petitioner was surprised to be detained by airport officials. The circular was illegal and violates the diplomatic privileges conferred on the petitioner, he said.
Furthermore, the circular gazebo for the petitioner was unwarranted, since the petitioner was summoned several times to appear before the CBI and the petitioner also fully co-operated in the investigation, he added.
Claiming that the petitioner had travelled to various countries after the first circular gazebo was withdrawn by the authorities and had also appeared before the investigating officers regularly, after the removal of the first circular, he contended that the reissue of, yet another circular was not in accordance with law.
He wanted the court to request the records of the circular and to annul the same thing as illegal. As a provisional relief, the petitioner wanted the court to prevent immigration authorities from preventing him from traveling abroad.