Can't be charged as clause 8 of UASL norms ambiguous: Loop

Promoters of Loop Telecom today told a Delhi court, hearing the 2G case, that clause 8 of UASL guidelines is "ambiguous" and allegation of benami transaction against them cannot be substantiated as the funds transferred between them and Essar Group were duly recorded and audited.

Senior advocate Parag Tripathi, appearing for Loop Telecom and its promoters I P Khaitan and Kiran Khaitan, said the CBI has charged them for violating clause 8 of the Unified Access Services Licences (UASL) guidelines but it is ambiguous due to which even the government had not come forward as complainant in the case.

"The very foundation is based on ambiguity in clause 8 of the UASL guidelines. The clause is ambiguous and this is clear from the government's stand as it has not come forward as the complainant in the case," he told Special CBI Judge O P Saini.

"The fact that the government has not come forward as a complainant, it is clear that there is ambiguity in clause 8 of the UASL guidelines," Tripathi said while opposing framing of charges against his clients.

Tripathi said clause 8 of UASL guidelines is "a web of ambiguity" and it rules out any "criminality". If this clause is ambiguous, my clients cannot be prosecuted, he said.

The CBI, in its charge sheet filed on December 12 last year, had named Essar Group promoters Ravi Ruia and Anshuman Ruia and Loop Telecom promoters I P Khaitan and Kiran Khaitan, besides Essar Group Director (Strategy and Planning) Vikash Saraf as accused in the case.

Besides the five persons, three companies -- Loop Telecom Pvt Ltd, Loop Mobile India Ltd and Essar Teleholdings Ltd --are also accused in the case.