NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Tuesday said the INX Media case involving former Union minister P Chidambaram is a "classic case of money laundering " and it is of the prima facie opinion that his custodial interrogation is required for an effective investigation into the matter.Justice Sunil Gaur, who dismissed Chidambaram's anticipatory bail plea in the corruption and money laundering cases related to the INX Media scam, said that granting bail in such cases will send a wrong message to the society.He also noted that the Congress leader was evasive in replies to the probe agencies when he was under protective cover given by the court.The high court also declined interim protection from arrest to him for approaching the Supreme Court in the case.After the high court denied him relief, Chidambaram met senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Salman Khurshid in the Supreme Court for deliberating his future course of action.Sibal has been asked by an apex court official to place Chidambaram's petition before Registrar (judicial) who will take a call for putting it before the Chief Justice of India.Sibal has been asked to mention his appeal on Wednesday at 10.30am in the Supreme Court.The high court had on July 25, 2018 granted interim protection from arrest to Chidambaram in both the cases and it has been extended from time to time.The senior Congress leader's role had come under the scanner of various investigating agencies in the Rs 3,500-crore Aircel-Maxis deal and the INX Media case involving Rs 305 crore.It was during his tenure as finance minister in the UPA-I government that clearances from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) were given to the two ventures.In the INX Media case, the CBI had registered an FIR on May 15, 2017 alleging irregularities in the FIPB clearance granted to the media group for receiving overseas funds of Rs 305 crore in 2007 during Chidambaram's tenure as finance minister.Thereafter, the ED in 2018 lodged the money laundering case in this regard.Chidambaram's petition had said that though no summons had ever been served on him by the ED in this case, he had an apprehension of arrest in view of the summons issued to him by the CBI.