SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SEBI) 7

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Prithviraj K. Chavan, Revati Mohite Dere, JJ
Mr. Shoaib Richie Sequeira – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4248 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate, Mr. Parth Jain, Mr. Puru Jain, Ms. Rutvi Soni, Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Abhishek Kale, Ms. Vaibhavi Bhure, Mr. Aditya Ajgaonkar, Mr. Harish Khedkar, Mr. Vivek Dwivedi, Mr. Nevil Chopra, Ms. Antara Kulkarni, and Ms. Rebecca Singh
For the Respondents:Mr. H.S. Venegavkar, P.P, Ms. P.P. Shinde, A.P.P, Mr. H.S. Venegavkar, S.P.P, Mr. Ayush Kedia, Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Dhavalsinh Patil, Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Ms. Sampada S. Patil, Mr. Rafique Dada, Senior Advocate, Mr. Bhushan Shah, Mr. Akash Jain, Mr. Abhishek Nair, Mr. Mansukhlal & Co., Mr. Nikhit Mishra, Joint C.P.

The High Court may direct the CBI to investigate offenses without state consent when they involve significant public financial interests and span multiple jurisdictions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of mandamus sought for investigation into economic offenses - Petitioner alleges misappropriation of public funds, defrauding investors, and laundering money through shell companies - Respondent agencies were found to be reluctant to investigate, necessitating intervention by the High Court. (Paras 1-3, 24-32)

(B) Judicial authority - High Court empowered to direct CBI to investigate offenses within a state without state consent, particularly if the case has national and international ramifications. (Paras 20-22, 25-30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a public rights activist, filed for a writ to direct various enforcement agencies to investigate serious economic offenses involving significant sums of public money, allegedly committed by the director of a corporation. The petitioner claimed prior complaints were ignored or inadequately handled by the involved authorities. (Paras 4-10)

Findings of Court:
The High Court found merit in the petitioner's allegations and deemed the reluctance of the Economic Offences Wing and CBI unacceptable, ordering a Special Investigation Team to be formed by the CBI to investigate the complaints thoroughly. (Paras 32-34)

Issues: The primary issues pertained to the adequacy of the investigations conducted by enforcement agencies and the necessity of transferring the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI due to the scale of alleged offenses. (Paras 21-24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair investigations, particularly in cases involving vast sums of public funds and allegations against influential entities, underscoring the court's authority to intervene to safeguard justice and public confidence in the justice system. (Paras 26-31)

Result: Petition allowed; CBI directed to form a Special Investigation Team. (Para 32)

Table of Content
1. writ jurisdiction for investigation complaints. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. petitioner's history of similar complaints. (Para 3 , 5 , 6)
3. misappropriation and fraudulent activities outlined. (Para 9 , 10)
4. legal framework for transferring investigations. (Para 17 , 18)
5. court observations on investigation quality and agency performance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
6. justification for sit due to the gravity of the accusations. (Para 27 , 28 , 32)
7. conclusion on disposing of the petition and directing investigations. (Para 31 , 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT:

[Per Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.]:

1. The petitioner, who is a public rights activist and founding member of a Non-Governmental Organizations involved in espousing public interests has approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following substantive prayers;

“A. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to jointly and/or severally carry out a preliminary investigation on the basis of the Complaint dated 22nd December 2021 (Exhibit E and F) and the Complaint dated 3 April 2023 (Exhibit J) and submit a report to this Hon’ble Court within a period of 3 weeks from the date of the Order or any such other time as this Hon’ble Court may deem it fit and proper;

B. Ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (A) above;

B-1.That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to transfer the investigation of the Complaints to the Crime Investigation Department, Maharashtra;

B-2.The petitioner submits that in light of the manner in which the investigation in being conducted by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.4, it is necessary and in the interest of justice that the investigation be transferred to another investigating agency, namely the Criminal Investigation Department, Maharashtra for necessary action of the Petitioner’s complaints;

C. For costs;

D. For any other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present matter”.

2. Before adverting to the facts, it is pertinent to note that this is not the first case in public interest that the petitioner has agitated, but previously he had filed a Public Interest Litigation (for short “PIL”) No.1942 of 2005 before this Court exposing scams of approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- Crores (Rupees one lac Crore) in incentive schemes in Import Export Policies. The PIL was admitted on 25th January, 2006.

3. The petitioner contends that in April, 2006, he has filed two PILs’ bearing Criminal Writ Petition No.3 of 2006 and Criminal Writ Petition No.13 of 2006 against M/s. Autoriders Finance Limited for;

(i) misappropriation of approximately Rs.50 Crores availed as a loan from United Trust of India; and

(ii) misappropriation of approximately Rs.76 Crores availed as loan from a consortium of six banks wherein Union Bank of India was the lead Bank.

After filing the aforesaid two PILs’ sometime in the month of April, 2009, the banks have collectively recovered approximately Rs.14,00,00,000/- (Rs. Fourteen Crores only) from M/s. Autoriders Finance Limited. This Court, by a common order dated 9th July, 2009 disposed of the aforesaid two PILs’ by entrusting the investigation of the subject matter therein to the State C.I.D, Pune, Maharashtra State under the overall supervision of Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D, Maharashtra State, Pune.

4. The present petition is filed seeking limited directions, inter alia, issuance of an appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to jointly act upon the complaint dated 22nd December, 2021 (First EOW complaint) and the complaint dated 3rd April, 2023 (Second EOW complaint) filed by the petitioner wherein he has prayed for conducting preliminary investigation/inquiry into the fraudulent activities undertaken by one Anand Jaikumar Jain- the Director/Promoter of Jai Corporation Ltd (Jai Corp Ltd) w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top