Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Shree Saraiwwalaa Agrr Refineries ... vs Union Of India on 24 January, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
1
ITEM NO.9 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 762/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-2021
in WP No. 22588/2019 passed by the High Court For The State Of
Telangana At Hyderabad)
M/S SHREE SARAIWWALAA AGRR REFINERIES LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.7809/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.8771/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
Date : 24-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Adv.
Ms. Vatsala Kak, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Satija, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Rao, Adv.
Ms. Ankita, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified Applications for exemption from filing c/c of the Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur Date: 2022.01.25 17:44:23 IST Reason: impugned judgment and permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures are allowed. 2 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the impugned judgment it has been noticed that a coordinate Bench of the High court had in case of Rajesh Agarwal v. Reserve Bank of India [2021(2) ALD 290] read the principles of audi altrum partem in clauses 8.9.4 and 8.9.5 of the Master Circular. He submits that the High Court has also recorded the order passed in SLP [C] No.3931/2021 on 15.04.2021 granting interim orders. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the effect of the interim order is that the endeavour of the High Court to read the principles of personal hearing into the circular have been stayed. He further points out that though undoubtedly it is so, this Court has balanced the interests by simultaneously noticing that the minutes/order of the Joint Lenders meeting should not be acted upon.
The second aspect urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the High Court has in extenso in para 22 extracted the conclusion of the Forensic Audit Report. He submits that this is the only Forensic Audit Report. The conclusion arrived at is “we find no divergence of funds of fraud being intentionally carried out by the management”. His submission is that no finding of fraud has been reached by the Forensic Audit Committee and the High Court has thereafter, in para 24 extracted from other portions of that very report to come to an opinion that the petitioners company’s account has been rightly declared as ‘fraud’.
He thus, submits that this is a factual error as the 3 High Court ought not to derive a conclusion other than what has been arrived by the Forensic Audit Report.
Issue notice on the Special Leave Petition as well as on the interim prayer for stay, returnable in four weeks.
In view of the mandates stated to be existing in para 8.9.5 of the Master Circular dated 01.07.2016 [Annexure P/5] categorized as Reserve Bank of India [Frauds Classification and Reporting by Commercial Banks and Select FIs] Directions, 2016 to lodge a complaint with the CBI within 30 days, the only interim order we are inclined to pass at this stage would be that the matter may not be reported to the CBI for the time being.
A copy of the order to accompany the notice. Dasti in addition.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)