9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dip Deb, Adv. Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Riju Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Aranyak Saha, Adv. Mr. Arindam Paul, Adv. Mr. Ipsita Ghosh, Adv. For the SFIO : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. Mr. Sounava Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Uneaza Ali, Adv. For the Respondent nos. 7 8 : Mr. Rishav Dutt, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Shalini Bose, Adv. MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. The petitioners pray for a Mandamus against the respondent nos. 2 to 6 being the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and its Directors in relation to an ongoing investigation and seek compliance of sections 217 and 220 of The Companies Act, 2013. The petitioners have filed two applications being CAN 1 of 2022 and CAN 2 of 2023 for a direction on the respondents to file a Report of the investigation and for preservation of CCTV recordings made during the interrogation in the course of the investigation. 2. The order dated 17.5.2023 records that the judgment will decide on the maintainability of the writ petition and the two applications filed by the petitioners. 3. On the point of maintainability, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be referred to in this context. 7. The only question which remains is whether the present writ petition is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata pre-supposes that the parties in both the proceedings are the same and the issue has conclusively been decided in one of the proceedings. In the present case, apart from the difference in the array of parties, the petitioner no. 2 (the sole petitioner before the Gujarat High Court) preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court from the order of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. Moreover, while the prayers before the Gujarat High Court related to quashing of the investigation, the prayers before this Court concern the investigation being conducted within the bounds of law. 8. The principle of res judicata is found in Explanation IV to section 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which requires that any matter which might and ought to have been made in a former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially an issue in such suit. The word such is carried from section 11 and refers to the subsequent suit . Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inability, the Court proceeds to decide on the two applications filed by the petitioners. 11. CAN 1 of 2022 is for a stay of the investigation carried on by the SFIO until the SFIO submits a Report as required under section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013. CAN 2 of 2023 is for a direction on the SFIO for preservation of the CCTV footage and for compliance of the Order passed by the Supreme Court on 2.12.2020 in Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh; (2021) 1 SCC 184 directing the Union of India to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in certain offices including the offices of SFIO. 12. The respondent no. 2 SFIO, through learned counsel, has contended that time limit can be imposed by the SFIO and further that an accused person cannot choose the mode or manner in which the investigation is to be carried out. 13. The investigation which is presently underway is under section 212 of The Companies Act, 2013 which provides for investigation into affairs of a company by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted in the course of arguments that the only prayer which the petitioners now seek is for the investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted to the Central Government. The petitioners reliance on section 212(13) hence, does not assist the petitioners. 18. The investigation commenced on 8.12.2018. By a communication dated 28.12.2018, the SFIO was directed to conclude the investigation within 6 months from the date of the communication. The period was further extended on 26.6.2019. The Official Liquidator has also taken a stand in his affidavit-in-opposition that all the records and documents of the Company which is being investigated is with the Official Liquidator. A mail dated 13.4.2023 of the SFIO with reference to CAN 2 of 2023 which has been placed before the Court indicates that it is not possible for the SFIO to complete the investigation in the near future given the volume of data and physical documents collected during the investigation. 19. Although the statutory position with regard to absence of any outer limit for investigation is clear, the principles of equity and natural justice demand that the SFIO should at least indicate a reasonable time frame within which the investigation will be completed. Admittedly, 4 years have passed since SFIO was directed to conclude the investigation within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
