The cross-examination of former Kerala chief minister Oommen Chandy was completed on Tuesday in a city civil court in connection with an alleged cheating case involving a solar power project.
Chandy replied to about 98 questions during his cross-examination.
Additional City Civil and Sessions Court Judge NR Channakeshava resumed the cross-examination of the Congress leader for the second day, which lasted for four hours. On Monday, around 30 questions were posed to Chandy.
Bengaluru-based businessman MK Kuruvilla had filed a civil petition in 2015 seeking return of Rs 1,60,85,700 deposited with SCOSSA Educational Consultants Private Limited, the first defendant, for setting up a solar power project in Kerala.
According to Kuruvilla, in 2011, he got acquainted with one Binu Nair who claimed to be the Director of Kochi-based SCOSSA. The petitioner had said that Nair had approached him for setting up the solar power project.
The petition stated that Nair had claimed that one of the directors of SCOSSA, Andrews, was Chandy’s first cousin and would be appointed consultant to the project and that he would operate from Abu Dhabi.
Kuruvilla had also submitted that Nair had named one Diljith as another director of SCOSSA who, he claimed, was the private secretary to Chandy and contended that the former chief minister too was jointly liable to return his money.
The prosecution, while cross-examining Chandy, tried to establish that he was aware of the various stages of the case and was in total control of the counsels to make changes in the affidavit which he received.
At one stage, the judge raised his voice and reprimanded the prosecution for asking “irrelevant” questions saying, “Please ask pertinent questions. I have to conduct other cases also and nobody can dictate me. I am the master of this court.” Later, he posted the matter to January 12 for further hearing.
On October 24 last, the court had directed six persons, including Chandy, and a firm to together pay an amount of Rs 1,60,85,700 to Kuruvilla with 12% interest for a solar power project that did not materialise.
Chandy had filed two applications appealing against the earlier verdict. The first plea had challenged the court’s ex-parte order and the second one sought that his arguments be heard.