A Delhi court on Friday reserved its order on May 25 on farming of charges against Essar group promoters Ravi Ruia and Anshuman Ruia and Loop Telecom promoters I P Khaitan and Kiran Khaitan, Essar group Director (Strategy and Planning) and Vikash Saraf who are facing charges of cheating and criminal conspiracy in 2G case.

"Put up for order on May 25. All the five accused person shall remain present in the court in person (on May 25)," Special CBI Judge O P Saini said after the CBI concluded its arguments on framing of charges.

Loop Telecom Pvt Ltd, Loop Mobile India Ltd and Essar Teleholdings Ltd have also been named in the CBI chargesheet on December 12.

CBI counsel A K Singh on Friday said Loop Telecom played "hide and seek" with the Department of Telecom (DoT) and concealed information from it regarding their relationship with Essar Group.

"First the company (Loop Telecom) had not filed the clause 8 (of the Unified Access Services Licences guidelines) certificate which was mandatory to be submitted at the time of filing of the application (for spectrum) and secondly, when it gave the certificate on the asking of DoT, it submitted the same with incomplete information, he said."

Last week CBI had told a Delhi court that promoters of Essar Group and Loop Telecom resorted to false and dishonest impression to procure 2G spectrum thereby violating Unified Access Services Licences (UASL) guidelines.

 "The basic case of the prosecution (CBI) is that they (accused) have violated clause 8 of the UASL guidelines and false and dishonest impression (made by them) is the crux of the matter," Special public prosecutor UU Lalit had told designated CBI Judge O P Saini.

Seeking bail for Loop Telecom promoters I P Khaitan and Kiran Khaitan, Senior advocate Parag Tripathi on Thursday said that allegation of benami transaction against them cannot be substantiated as the funds transferred between them and Essar Group were duly recorded and audited.

"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.