August21 , 2026

    Andhra Pradesh HC seeks CID report on Rs 3,609 cr Kakinada port share transfer dispute

    Related

    MV Densa Eagle Berths at Deendayal Port with 47,250 MT of Granular Urea

    MV Densa Eagle has berthed at Deendayal Port, Kandla,...

    VOC Port Conducts 2nd Annual ISPS Code Statement of Compliance Audit

    V.O. Chidambaranar Port Authority underwent the 2nd Annual Statement...

    APSEZ Poised to Secure Dry Bulk Berths at Paradip Port

    Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZ) is...

    India Boosts Air Cargo Efficiency with 20-Hour Transit Target

    India has significantly accelerated domestic-to-international air cargo transshipment by...

    Delhi Airport Expands Air Cargo Network to London and Copenhagen

    Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport has expanded India’s domestic-to-international...

    Share

    AP high court on Tuesday directed the crime investigation department (CID) to present complete details of the case involving the transfer of shares in Kakinada port and Kakinada SEZ. The petition was filed by Vikrant Reddy, son of YSRCP Rajya Sabha MP YV Subba Reddy, seeking dismissal of the case.

    During the hearing, the court asked whether a compromise was reached between the complainant, Karnati Venkateswara Rao (KVR Rao), and Aurobindo Group regarding the disputed 3,609 crore share transfer. Justice N Harinath issued directions to CID to furnish all case details before the next hearing, scheduled for April 1.

    KVR Rao had lodged a complaint with the CID on December 2, 2024, stating that he was threatened and forced to transfer his stakes in Kakinada deep water port and Kakinada SEZ to Aurobindo Group.

    After CID registered a case, Vikrant approached the high court, arguing that the case was politically motivated. Senior advocate T Niranjan Reddy, representing Vikrant, alleged that former MP Vijayasai Reddy was colluding with the state govt to target the petitioner. He further alleged that investigating officers were leaking details to the media to tarnish Vikrant’s reputation, and sought a 25 lakh penalty on the complainant for filing a false
    case.