2021 Supreme(Mad) 3002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
Ravi Parthasarathy & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. Nos. 3730, 4227, 4095 & 11206 of 2021, Crl. M.P. Nos. 6647, 6649, 2218, 2601, 2679, 3388, 6708 & 6709 of 2021, W.P. No. 1397 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 5917 of 2021
Decided On : 31-08-2021

Headnote:

Companies Act, 2013 - Chapter XXVII - Section 2(51), 71(10), 241, 242, 242 (k), 149 (12), 212, 447 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 417, 420 r/w 120-B – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Protection of Investment of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 - Section 2(3) - Criminal Original Petition – Criminal Conspiracy - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal - Investigation into affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office - Petition for bail, it was fairly conceded by learned senior counsel appearing for respective petitioners as well as intervenors that bail petition is intrinsically connected with quash petitions in Crl. O.P. and, therefore, said petitions may be tagged together and listed for hearing so as to give a quietus to issue. It was also informed on behalf of intervenor that W.P. has been filed for a mandamus praying for certain directions and said petition, too, being connected with issue on hand, Registry was directed to place matter before Hon'ble Chief Justice as to the listing of bail petitions, quash petitions and writ petition and upon orders of Hon'ble Chief Justice, petitions are listed before this Court for hearing - Whether entrustment of investigation to SFIO by Central Government u/s 212 of the Companies Act bars jurisdiction of other investigating agencies to proceed with investigation into any matter concerning affairs of the company - Whether default committed by ITNL on account of non-payment of interest in view of the moratorium granted by NCLAT could be held against ITNL and petitioners, thereby making them liable for penal prosecution under TNPID Act - Whether the amounts received by ITNL could be held to be “deposits” within the meaning of Section 2 (2) and whether ITNL could be held to be a “financial establishment” as defined u/s 2 (3) of TNPID Act - Whether provisions of the TNPID Act could be enforced against ITNL for debentures issued by it on private placement basis u/s 42 of the Companies Act – Held, it is to be impressed upon that economic offence committed by IL & FS and its group companies is to whooping tune of Rs.91,000 Crores and above, which has a spiraling and cascading effect on economic growth of the country, which has resulted in Central Government interfering in administration of IL & FS and its group companies by filing petition before NCLT for reconstitution of Board, which was been discussed above. various orders passed by Tribunal at interference of the Central Government clearly show that all is not well with IL & FS and its group companies and also persons, who were manning said companies, of which petitioners also formed a part then - Though petitioners had come out of the post of Directors, it is not to be forgotten that action by the Central Government in filing petition before the NCLT and ordering of investigation by SFIO clearly show economic imbalance which the group companies had created in derailing the economy of country - Finding has been rendered by NCLT that the petitioners were within the Committee of Directors who were at the helm of affairs in running IL & FS and its group companies - This Court, by quashing the case relating to TNPID Act, by no stretch, is giving a clean chit to petitioners herein, as persons who are beyond a pale of doubt - petitioners, as Committee of Directors, have created a economic crisis for whole group of companies and persons, who were shareholders in said companies. It is assertion of the intervenors that petitioners have siphoned off huge sums of money, in form of salary and perquisites by holding post of Directors and with aid of it, had purchased very many immovable properties across globe. intervenors also submitted through their oral arguments certain materials, which intervenors claim are properties purchased by the petitioners in many of foreign countries. However, this Court is not entering into said domain to find out truth or otherwise in said submissions. It is borne out by record that investigation has been assigned to SFIO by Central Government and that SFIO is seized of the matter and investigation is being carried out by SFIO. As already pointed out above, jurisdiction of SFIO is vast and SFIO is clothed with powers to investigate into matters not only related to Companies Act, but concerning any law, be it enacted by State or the Central Government, so long as there seems to be an infraction of said law. Such being case, intervenors, if in possession of information, which would be valuable to SFIO in their on-going investigation, could very well provide information available with them relating to immovable properties, which are alleged to be held by petitioners, which, according to submission of intervenors are result of siphoning off money from group companies to enrich themselves and any additional material provided by intervenors would be a material on which SFIO could investigate and try to find truth and veracity of very many transactions – Criminal Original Petition allowed.