I-T proceedings against Karti Chidambaram: Madras high court declines hearing, judge recuses

CHENNAI: Multiple attempts made by counsel for former Union minister P Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram and his wife in the Madras high court to stall income tax proceedings did not earn them any reprieve, as at least three different benches declined to offer any hearing.
It was a case of faux pas before Justice P Rajamanickam, where senior advocate K T S Tulsi made a mention and sought an urgent hearing of the pleas moved by Karti and his wife.The judge agreed to hear the case as lunch motion.
However, when Justice Rajamanickam commenced his hearing in the afternoon, Baskar and M Sheela, standing counsel for the tax department, raised several objections and said, “Even the crime numbers mentioned by the petitioners are incorrect. They must be amended first. Moreover, the cases are not pending before the additional chief metropolitan magistrate court in Egmore, as claimed. They are pending before the special court for cases against MPs and MLAs.”
Recording the submissions, Justice Rajamanickam wondered how the plea can he heard by him as he is not the portfolio judge. To this, senior counsel Nalini Chidambaram said they made a representation before the chief justice who directed the registry to list the matter before this court.
To this, Justice Rajamanickam asked: “If so, where is the order passed by the chief justice. Without such an 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 counsel for the department are raising several objections which have to be rectified.”
The court then directed the registry to post the matter before the chief justice to decide further course of hearing.
Then, Karti’s counsel again made a mention before Chief Justice S P Sahi’s bench seeking an urgent hearing on Monday, a day before the special court is scheduled to hear the plea. However, noting that he can’t take a decision without going into any note or order passed by Justice Rajamanickam, the chief justice asked counsel to make a representation to the registrar (judicial), who would forward it to the office of the chief justice for appropriate orders.
Earlier in the morning, Justice Anita Sumanth recused from hearing the plea moved by the two after Sheela and Baskar submitted that documents seized from Advantage Strategic Private Limited were the basis for the cases initiated against them and that the judge had represented the company when she was an advocate. Concurring with the submissions, Justice Anita Sumanth directed the registry to forward the plea to the chief justice for posting before another court.
The judge also turned down Tulsi’s submission that she should at least adjourn the matter till Monday with an interim injunction against the special court from framing charges.