Advocate Vijay Aggarwal appearing for former Telecom Minister, A. Raja in the 2G Scam case listed down the difficulties of arguing through Video Conferencing in a case with a large number of files before the Delhi High Court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Brijesh Sethi while hearing the matter through video conferencing heard the arguments of the respondents and petitioners in length and will hear the respondents again tomorrow.
One of the pleas was filed by Conwood Construction and Developers (P) Ltd, an Accused in the 2G Prevention of Money Laundering case, seeking the release of the properties attached by the ED by furnishing an indemnity bond.
Notably, the CBI and ED had moved the Delhi High Court in March 2018 against the acquittal of all accused in the 2G spectrum case which came to light in 2017.
Mr. Aggarwal submitted that the application moved by CBI and ED is a ‘counterblast’ of the application moved by A. Raja for the release of property.
Whereas, ASG Sanjay Jain appearing for the CBI submitted that it is a mere coincidence and our application has been delayed because of the persisting situation amid the COVID19 outbreak. On which Mr. Aggarwal contended that it is not a coincidence, it is a well-thought design.
Advocate Tarannum Cheema appearing for one of the respondents Mr. Sanjay Chandra submitted that he is serving in Tihar Jail and had not been served a copy yet.
Mr. Aggarwal also submitted that the learned ASG must clarify on the ‘public interest’, how is this application moved by them is in the public interest. Mr. Agagrwwal further added that 3 of my 4 clients are from Mumbai and 1 from Delhi, none of them can travel to either of the places due to the prevailing situation, then how will I take instructions. We argue on the client’s instructions. We do not have the privilege of being briefed by CBI, that only Mr. Jain has.
Mr. Aggarwal further did a comparison of the earlier dismissed application with the fresh application, in which everything is the same. “I’m responsible for waking up the sleeping beast, as I moved the application for release of property,” Mr. Aggarwal added.
“Justice Hurried is Justice denied”, Mr. Aggarwal contended.
After this Mr. Aggarwal sought time from the court and requested for a hearing of the matter again tomorrow, he stated that “I’ll continue tomorrow.”
The bench allowed the same and has directed the applicants to serve a copy to Mr. Chandra in jail at the earliest.
The bench will hear the matter again tomorrow at 2.30 PM.
-India Legal Bureau