The State Bank of India and other public sector banks on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the Aircel-Maxis case as a substantial amount of theirs was involved as loans.
A bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud agreed to hear the plea by the bank after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi mentioned the matter before the bench.
The Aircel-Maxis matter was listed for hearing on February 3.
The top court had on January 6, proposed to cancel the 2G licence and spectrum granted to Aircel if the owner of Maxis Communication, Malaysia-based Anantha Krishnan Tatparanandam, who bought the majority shares of the Indian telecom company, and his one-time key aide and Director Augustus Ralph Marshall failed to present themselves before the court.
The court had sounded the course after it was told that Krishnan and Marshall were not appearing before the trial court which was holding the 2G trial and were also evading summons.
Marshall was shown by the CBI as a Director of UK-based M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc, and Malaysia-based M/s Maxis Communications Berhad.
The Court by its January 6 order, had also restrained transfer or trading in 2G spectrum originally granted to Aircel to any other entity.
"In the meantime, the selling and trading in the 2G Spectrum under consideration shall remain stayed," the court had said.
Aircel was granted a 2G licence with spectrum bundled with it in November 2006.
Proposing to cancel the licence and spectrum, the court had said that Krishnan and other accused would not be allowed to frustrate the law by not appearing in court.
"It is imperative to ensure, in our considered view, that the process of law should not be permitted to be frustrated by non-service of summons on the accused," the court had said in its order.
It had further said that in order to "enforce the presence" of the accused "we propose to restrain, earning of any revenue, by using the 2G Spectrum licences, which were originally granted to M/s Aircel Telecommunications."
The court had also made it clear that Krishnan, Marshal or any other two accused would not be permitted to raise any issue of financial loss, that they might suffer on account of the proposed cancellation.
It also clarified, that in case the proposed order is passed, it would not be open to any of the accused, to raise an objection with reference to any monetary loss, emerging out of the proposed order, the court said.