Subrata Chattoraj v. Union Of India And Others

Order

1. 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 the Chit Fund Scam. He states that since no help and cooperation in connection with the ongoing 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 the counsel opposite who may respond to the same within one week thereafter.

2. Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG has also filed a short note by CBI and indicated certain steps that can be taken in the matter in case this Court eventually decides to direct CBI to take over the investigation.

3. Mr C.S Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel has pursuant to our order dated 25-2-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 802 filed a surrejoinder in which he has among other aspects dealt with the question of “purchase value” of the properties held by Saradha Group of Companies. A perusal of the statement filed at p. 474 of the said surrejoinder however leaves many questions 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 surrejoinder on account of paucity of time and the fact that relevant record is deposited with Justice Shyamal Sen Commission of Inquiry which has now permitted the Police authorities to inspect the same. He undertakes to file an additional affidavit indicating the purchase value of the immovable 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.

4. SEBI has also filed a counter to which the parties may respond, if so advised, before the next date of hearing.

5. 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.

6. Post again on 26-3-2014.

Court Masters