ITEM NO.

1
(P.H.)

COURT NO. 6

SECTION PIL

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 401 OF 2013
SUBRATA CHATTORAJ

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
I.A. No.1 (appln. for impleadment)

Respondent(s)

WITH W.P(C) NO. 402 of 2013

(With office report)
W.P(C) NO. 413 of 2013
(With office report)
Date: 04/03/2014 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya,Sr.Adv.
(in 401/13)
Mr. K.C. Mittal,Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,Adv.
(in 402/13)
Mr. Ashok Bhan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Dipak Bhattacharyya,Adv.
Ms. Niti Luthra,Adv.
Mr. R.K. Rathore,Adv.
Mr. S.J. Amith,Adv.
Ms. Ritika Gambhir,Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,Adv.
(in 413/13)

Mr. Suresh Chandra Tripathy,Adv.

For Respondent(s)
Mr. S.K. Bagaria,ASG
Mr. N.K. Karhail,Adv.
Ms. Mini Kaushik,Adv.
Mr. Ajit Singh,Adv.
Mr. Ashok K. Shrivastava,Adv.
Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv.
(Min. Of Finance)
Mr. Sidharth Luthra,ASG
(CBI)
Mr. Sadman Ali,Adv.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija,Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahara,Adv.
Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan,Sr.Adv. (West Bengal)
Mr. Anip Sachthey,Adv.
Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan,Adv.
Mr. Suhaan Mukherjee,Adv.
Mr. Mohit Paul,Adv.
Ms. Shagun Matta,Adv.
Mr. Kabir S. Bose,Adv.
Ms. Pavni Poddar,Adv.
Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R.,Adv.
Ms. Swati Setia,Adv.
Ms. Manisha, Adv.
Mr. P.P.Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Bhargava V. Deasi,Adv.
Mr. Shreyas Mehrotra,Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar,Adv.

(RBI)

(SEBI)

Mr. Prasenjit Keswani,Adv.

Ms. Sonia Dube,Adv.
Mr. S. Chakraborty,Adv.
Mr. Prateek Jalan,Adv.
For M/S. Legal Options
Mr. Samir Ali Khan,Adv.
Mr. Sajith P., Adv.
Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra,Adv.
Ms. Apurva Upmanyu,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER

Mr. S.K.Bagaria, learned senior counsel has today filed in

a sealed cover a report from the Enforcement Directorate. He submits
that the Enforcement Directorate has so far received copies of only
eight FIRs in connection with chit fund scam. He states that since
no help and co-operation in connection with the on-going
investigation by the Enforcement Directorate was forthcoming from
the State police, the Enforcement Directorate was forced to approach
the High Court of Calcutta for a direction to the investigating
agency to furnish the requisite information. He submits that a
direction was resultantly issued by the High Court to the State
agencies to furnish meaningful assistance to the Enforcement
Directorate. He is however unable to state whether any assistance
was actually provided to the Enforcement Directorate by the agency
concerned even after the direction issued by the High Court. He
seeks one week's time to take instructions on the subject and file an
affidavit indicating the factual position in this regard with an
advance copy to counsel opposite who may respond to the same within
one week thereafter.
Mr.Siddarth Luthra, learned ASG has also filed a short
note by the CBI and indicated certain steps that can be taken in the
matter in case this court eventually decides to direct the CBI to
take over the investigation.
Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel has pursuant
to our order dated 25.02.2014 filed a sur-rejoinder in which he has
among other aspects dealt with the question of "purchase value" of
the properties held by the Saradha Group of Companies.
A perusal of the statement filed at page 474 of the said
sur-rejoinder however leaves many question unanswered as the details
set out appear to be very sketchy. Mr. Vaidyanathan prays for and
is granted 10 days' time to file a more comprehensive statement as
to the amount collected by the said group of companies and the
expenditure/investments incurred/made over a period of time. He
submits that the purchase value of the property could not be
accurately indicated in the sur-rejoinder on account of paucity of
time and the fact that relevant record is deposited with the Justice
Shyamal Sen Commission of Inquiry who has now permitted the police
authorities to inspect the same.
He undertakes to file an additional affidavit indicating
the purchase value of the immoveable properties held by the said
group of companies with a copy to the counsel opposite who are free
to respond to the same, if so advised.
SEBI has also filed a counter to which the parties may
respond, if so advised, before the next date of hearing.
Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel appearing
for the State of Odisha is not available today. A request is made
for adjournment on his behalf.
Post again on 26.03.2014.
|(Shashi Sareen)
|
Court Master

| (Veena Khera)
|
Court Master

|
|