2022 (3) TMI 1580 - SCH - Indian Laws

Non-calling of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 for recording of statement - HELD THAT - Issue notice. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 accepts notice. Reply be filed within two weeks - In the meantime, the petitioners be not arrested but shall cooperate with the investigation.

Summary

Issues: Exemption from filing certain documents, recording of statements, allegations of defrauding banks, notice to respondent, cooperation with investigation.

Exemption from filing documents: The Supreme Court allowed applications for exemption from filing copies of the impugned judgment, official translation, and for permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures. This decision was made in response to the petitioners' request.

Recording of statements: The petitioners' senior counsel argued that only the statement of petitioner No.1 was recorded, while petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were not called for recording their statements. The petitioners, who run a steel mill, claimed they did not owe any money to any bank. However, the allegation against them was that they were involved in transactions through their companies that led to defrauding banks. The complaint was filed on a specific date, and the court took note of these arguments.

Allegations of defrauding banks: The petitioners were accused of lending their companies to transactions that resulted in defrauding banks. The individuals involved in these transactions included merchant bankers who had positions on the petitioners' company board at some point. The court issued a notice regarding these allegations.

Notice to respondent: The court directed the respondent to file a reply within two weeks after accepting the notice. This step was taken to ensure the respondent had the opportunity to respond to the allegations and present their side of the case.

Cooperation with investigation: While the case was ongoing, the court ordered that the petitioners should not be arrested but must cooperate with the investigation. This directive aimed to balance the need for investigation with the petitioners' rights and freedom.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court's judgment addressed various aspects of the case, including exemption from filing documents, recording of statements, allegations of defrauding banks, notice to the respondent, and cooperation with the investigation. The court's decisions reflected a balance between the interests of all parties involved and the need for a fair and thorough legal process.