The partners are S Vaikundarajan and S Jagadeesan.
CBI, in its counter affidavit, submitted that Subbiah had amassed assets and pecuniery resources to the tune of Rs 8,23,93,501 in a conspiracy with his family members.
Investigation had shown that the two partners had conspired with Subbiah and his family and transferred Rs 7.5 crore to the Kancheepuram branch of ICICI for purported sale of the property of Subbiah's mother.
Besides, the signature of the woman in the sale agreement with Vaikuntarajan was different from the savings bank account specimen signature, they said.
CBI rejected the contention of the two promoters that the entire transaction was done through cheque and said "the petitioners have made payment through cheques to give it a colour of reality."
It said there were reasons to believe that the land sale agreement was a sham one and stressed it has been done as a pretext to account for the huge transfer of money.
CBI said the IT returns of the promoters showed that an advance of Rs 1.25 crore was given as advance to the Port Trust, which was not correct. No such payment had been made.
At the same time, a similar amount was given to the mother, according to another document annexed to the IT returns. Payment of money per se would not absolve the petitioners from any act of illegality, CBI contended.
CBI said the petitioners were highly influential and said their custodial interrogation was absolutely essential.
It said the promoters are also one of the biggest exporters of garnet sand, which takes place through Tuticorin port. It was possible that they would tamper with evidence, hampering the investigation, if granted bail, CBI said and added they should not be given it.
