New Delhi: The Supreme Court docket has refused to grant reduction to Jay Company Ltd and its director, Anand Jain, in reference to an alleged Rs 2,400 crore investor fraud case. The apex court docket upheld the Bombay Excessive Court docket’s order directing a Particular Investigation Staff (SIT) probe into the allegations in opposition to Jain, who’s accused of deceptive public buyers in actual property initiatives.
SC Finds No Cause To Intrude In HC’s Choice
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that the Bombay Excessive Court docket had acted inside its jurisdiction in ordering an SIT investigation, given the seriousness of the allegations. “We admire and recognize the braveness with which the Excessive Court docket has handed the order. That is what is anticipated of any Excessive Court docket,” the apex court docket noticed.
The court docket dominated that the directive to the CBI’s Mumbai Zonal Director to research the matter was legally sound and located no justification to intrude at this stage.
It additionally clarified that if an FIR is registered within the case, Jay Company Ltd and its associates may method the suitable authorized discussion board to problem it.
Bombay HC’s Directive for SIT Probe
In January, the Bombay Excessive Court docket instructed the CBI’s Mumbai Zonal Director to kind an SIT to conduct a radical investigation into the allegations in opposition to Jain and Jay Company Ltd. This directive got here in response to a petition filed by businessman Shoaib Richie Sequeira, who accused Jain and his firm of misusing public funds, deceptive buyers, and fascinating in cash laundering by diverting advances to subsidiaries.
Sequeira claimed that regardless of submitting complaints with the Mumbai Police’s Financial Offences Wing (EOW) on December 22, 2021, and April 3, 2023, no neutral investigation was carried out, prompting him to hunt judicial intervention. The HC discovered the allegations vital sufficient to warrant investigation beneath numerous sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act (PMLA).
EOW’s Investigation Below Scrutiny
The Supreme Court docket famous that the Bombay Excessive Court docket had expressed dissatisfaction with the EOW’s dealing with of the case. The HC criticized the company’s investigation strategies, declaring that it did not conduct a legally compliant preliminary inquiry. This prompted the HC to order an SIT probe to make sure an impartial and unbiased investigation, uninfluenced by prior court docket observations.
SC Rejects Jay Company’s Authorized Arguments
Throughout the Supreme Court docket listening to, senior advocates Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi, and Amit Desai represented Jay Company Ltd. Desai argued that the Bombay Excessive Court docket’s order exceeded the scope of the unique petition, which had solely sought a preliminary probe. He contended that the HC’s growth of the case right into a full-fledged investigation was unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of authorized course of.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court docket dismissed these arguments, ruling that the Excessive Court docket’s directive for an SIT probe was justified given the character of the allegations and the inadequacies within the EOW’s preliminary investigation.
