Abhishek Banerjee vs. Ramesh Malik

ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Miscellaneous Application Nos. 2689-2690/2023 in SLP(C) Nos. 23736-23737/2023

ABHISHEK BANERJEE Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RAMESH MALIK & ORS. Non-Applicant(s)/Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.261552/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.261550/2023-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)

Date : 15-12-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

For Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Adv.

• Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv.
• Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, AOR
• Mr. Piyush Ray, Adv.
• Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv.
• Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv.
• Mr. Ayan Poddar, Adv.
• Mr. Archit Adlakha, Adv.
• Ms. Somya Saxena, Adv.

For Non-Applicant(s)/Respondent(s)

Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv./AOR Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. A. Kumar, Adv.

Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2023.12.16 12:50:21 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Annexures A-4 to A-6. He states that the petitioner will be satisfied in case an order of suspension of reportage is passed. He relies on the decision of this Court in "Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India & Anr.1".

The Court's role and meddling at the investigation stage was examined in this case by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in the judgment dated 05.10.2023 passed in MAT no. 1960/2023 and connected matter(s). This Court has also passed an order dated 08.12.2023 in SLP(C) nos. 23736-23737/2023.

The law regarding Court's interference and role at investigation stage has been examined and clarified by this Court in numerous decisions including the following: -

1. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24.

2. State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan, (2012) 4 SCC 547.

3. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Niyamavedi, (1995) 3 SCC 601.

4. D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari, (2009) 10 SCC 488.

5. Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195.

6. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1918; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315.

<span id="page-1-0"></span>Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement states that the said Directorate is bound by the orders passed by the Courts and the investigation is conducted in accordance with law.

We wish to clarify that a direction issued by the court should form the subject matter of an order, and the parties including the Directorate of Enforcement are only bound by the order passed by the Court.

A person aggrieved by an order is entitled to challenge the same in accordance with law.

Recording the aforesaid, at this stage, we are not inclined to pass any order on the prayer made and recorded above. The miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

We would also like to clarify that if the applicant has any grievance, he should approach the Division Bench of the jurisdictional High Court before approaching this Court.

(DEEPAK GUGLANI) (R.S. NARAYANAN) AR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR