By Express News Service
KOLKATA: A “typographical error” by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a high-profile money laundering case linked to coal pilferage dragged chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s nephew Abhishek Banerjee’s sister-in-law in front of the central agency’s office on Sunday midnight.
Maneka Gambhir turned up in front of ED’s CGO complex office in Salt Lake shortly after midnight as she was issued a summon by the central agency asking her to come around at 12.30 am on September 12.
The sources in the ED said the time was erroneously mentioned as 12.30 am instead of 12.30 pm. Maneka moved the Calcutta High Court praying that contempt proceedings be drawn against the central agency.
The ED, however, issued a fresh summon asking Maneka to come at 12.30 pm at the agency’s office. She was interrogated for over seven hours. Maneka had reached ED’s office around 12.20 am with her lawyer.
They showed the summon to the night guard who allowed them to enter the premises of the office.
She waited for 20 minutes as no ED official was present there, so she left.
“I was given a summon at the airport and I came according to the time mentioned there,’’ said Maneka.
The ED had issued summons to Maneka at the Kolkata airport on September 10 after she was denied permission to fly to Bangkok. The central agency, in the summon, said Maneka was required to join the investigation.
The CBI had earlier questioned Maneka in connection with the coal pilferage case and this was the first time she was interrogated by the ED in the money laundering case.
In August, the Calcutta High Court directed the ED to quiz Maneka at its regional office in Kolkata, not in Delhi. She had challenged an ED summon that asked her to turn up at its Delhi office on September 5.
The ED, earlier, had interrogated Abhishek and his wife Rujira Banerjee in connection with the money laundering case linked to coal pilferage.
In the petition in the high court, Maneka’s lawyer accused Jthatthe ED violated the earlier order of the court directing the central agency not to take any stern action against her and it did not bar her from travelling abroad.
KOLKATA: A “typographical error” by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a high-profile money laundering case linked to coal pilferage dragged chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s nephew Abhishek Banerjee’s sister-in-law in front of the central agency’s office on Sunday midnight.
Maneka Gambhir turned up in front of ED’s CGO complex office in Salt Lake shortly after midnight as she was issued a summon by the central agency asking her to come around at 12.30 am on September 12.
The sources in the ED said the time was erroneously mentioned as 12.30 am instead of 12.30 pm. Maneka moved the Calcutta High Court praying that contempt proceedings be drawn against the central agency.
The ED, however, issued a fresh summon asking Maneka to come at 12.30 pm at the agency’s office. She was interrogated for over seven hours. Maneka had reached ED’s office around 12.20 am with her lawyer.
They showed the summon to the night guard who allowed them to enter the premises of the office.
She waited for 20 minutes as no ED official was present there, so she left.
“I was given a summon at the airport and I came according to the time mentioned there,’’ said Maneka.
The ED had issued summons to Maneka at the Kolkata airport on September 10 after she was denied permission to fly to Bangkok. The central agency, in the summon, said Maneka was required to join the investigation.
The CBI had earlier questioned Maneka in connection with the coal pilferage case and this was the first time she was interrogated by the ED in the money laundering case.
In August, the Calcutta High Court directed the ED to quiz Maneka at its regional office in Kolkata, not in Delhi. She had challenged an ED summon that asked her to turn up at its Delhi office on September 5.
The ED, earlier, had interrogated Abhishek and his wife Rujira Banerjee in connection with the money laundering case linked to coal pilferage.
In the petition in the high court, Maneka’s lawyer accused Jthatthe ED violated the earlier order of the court directing the central agency not to take any stern action against her and it did not bar her from travelling abroad.
