MUMBAI: Supreme Court denied relief to Anand Jain, director of Jai Corp Ltd, against a Bombay High Court order that directed CBI to form a special investigation team (SIT) to investigate allegations of fraudulent misappropriation of over Rs 2,000 crore.
The SC bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan did not interfere with the HC order but left it open to Jai Corp and Jain to explore available legal remedies.
“We admire and appreciate the courage with which the High Court has passed the order. This is what is expected of any High Court,” said the SC while disposing of the company’s plea.
Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan of Bombay HC, in their Jan 31 judgment on a petition by Richie Sequeira, member of an NGO, for a preliminary probe into Dec 2021 and April 2023 complaints against Jain, said, “The need to instill confidence in the investigations and consequently, in the administration of justice, is of utmost concern.”
The company’s senior counsel Ameet Desai said Sequeira’s petition before HC was “nothing but an abuse of the process of law”. Desai made a fervent appeal to SC “to read in between the lines and… test the bona fide of the original petitioner before the HC”.
SC said all that the petitioner wanted was for the EOW (Economic Offences Wing) of Mumbai police to undertake a preliminary inquiry “into the fraudulent activities alleged to have been undertaken by one Anand Jai Kumar Jain, Director of Jai Corporation,” which, according to HC, was not done and thus it called for an SIT probe. “It is the least that the High Court could have done in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,” the SC bench said in its March 17 order, available now. SC added, “The Zonal Director CBI, Mumbai, shall now proceed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court and undertake the investigation in accordance with law.”
For the company, former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and former Solicitor General of India Harish Salve also appeared and assailed the HC order, seeking its stay.
SC said the prima facie allegations levelled included “misappropriation of public monies for personal enrichment; defrauding investors; round tripping of funds through shell companies based on tax havens…”
SC also said, “It appears on a plain reading of the impugned judgment that the High Court expressed its deep anguish and felt disappointed with the manner in which the complaint was looked into more particularly by EOW.” It added HC also clarified that the SIT must probe “impartially from all possible angles” uninfluenced by its prima facie observations.
SC, however, said it also took notice of Rohatgi’s submission that in the past one identical writ petition was filed and was ordered to be dismissed.
Salve informed SC that a first information report (FIR) was registered at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
SC said it was always open for the accused to file for quashing of the FIR. If a quashing plea is made, the courts would have to decide it on merits uninfluenced by the HC or SC order, said Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan.