Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kalipada Pal vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 2025
14 to 24
16.12.2025
Rose Valley
W.P.A. 27005 of 2016
CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 4506 of 2019)
(CAN 4 of 2021)
(CAN 5 of 2022)
(CAN 6 of 2022)
(CAN 7 of 2023)
(CAN 8 of 2024)
(CAN 9 of 2024)
(CAN 10 of 2024)
(CAN 11 of 2024)
(CAN 12 of 2024)
(CAN 14 of 2024)
(CAN 15 of 2024)
(CAN 16 of 2024)
(CAN 17 of 2024)
(CAN 18 of 2025)
(CAN 19 of 2025)
(CAN 20 of 2025)
(CAN 21 of 2025)
(CAN 22 of 2025)
(CAN 23 of 2025)
(CAN 24 of 2025)
(CAN 25 of 2025)
(CAN 26 of 2025)
(CAN 27 of 2025)
(CAN 28 of 2025)
(CAN 29 of 2025)
(CAN 30 of 2025)
(CAN 31 of 2025)
(CAN 33 of 2025)
(CAN 34 of 2025)
(CAN 35 of 2025)
(CAN 36 of 2025)
(CAN 37 of 2025)
(CAN 38 of 2025)
(CAN 39 of 2025)
(CAN 40 of 2025)
With original side matters:
WP 275 of 2015, GA 896 of 2017, GA 315 of 2016,
GA 2291 of 2015, GA 3765 of 2015, GA 4015 of 2015
with
APOT 287 of 2015, GA 2255 of 2015, GA 2256 of 2015
with
GA 1552 of 2018
with
GA 5 of 2022
With
GA 7 of 2023
with
GA 8 of 2024
with
GA 9 of 2024
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 2-
with
GA 10 of 2025
Kalipada Pal
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
with
W.P.A 18257 of 2023
Brand Value Communications Ltd.
Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement, GOI & Ors.
With
W.P.A 20812 of 2023
Samir Kumar Hazra & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
With
W.P.A 20822 of 2023
Suvash Maji & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
with
W.P.A 20947 of 2023
Lipika Chanda
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
With
W.P.A 24932 of 2023
Asit Pramanik & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
With
W.P.A 25845 of 2016
CAN 1 of 2018 (Old CAN 4643 of 2018)
Rose Valley Fields Employees Union (WB Circle) & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
with
W.P.A 3268 of 2016
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 3-
Sarmistha Singha & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
With
W.P.A 6975 of 2024
Utpal Chanda
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
With
W.P.A 7837 of 2022
Chitra Malik & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
With
W.P.A 17346 of 2024
Mahijas Infra Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subhasis Chakraborty
Ms. Sushmita Kumari Singh
...... for petitioners in WPA 27005/2016
Mr. Arup Nath Bhattacharyya
Ms. Sreetama Biswas
... for Rose Valley Company in WPA 27005/2016
Mr. Anirban Kar
Mr. S. Sen
Mr. M. A. Elahi
... for ADC in WPA 27005 of 2016
Mr. S.V. Raju, Ld. ASG
Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. DSGI
Mr. Partha Ghosh
Ms. Amrita Pandey
Mr. Samrat Goswami
Ms. Debjani Ray
Ms. Riya Agarwal
Ms. S. Sarkhel
.....for the E.D.
Mr. Mihir Kundu
... for the applicant in CAN 16 of 2024 &
CAN 17 of 2024
Mr. Debnath Ghosh
Mr. Tanish Ganeriwala
Mr. Satyam Bhimsaria
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 4-
...for the applicant in CAN 27 of 2025
Mr. Kallol Mondal
Mr. S.K. Tiwari
Mr. Vipul Kundalia
Mr. Aayush Sharma
Mr. Anindya Kanan
Ms. Isabella Pal
... ... for the SFIO
Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay
Mr. Pronay Basak
... ... for the applicant in CAN 24 of 2025
Mr. Prasanta Kumar Dutt
Mr. Susanta Kumar Dutt
Mr. Syamantak Banerjee
...... for the SEBI
Mr. Tulsi Das Ray
...for the State
Mr. Vipul Kundalia
Mr. Aayush Sharma
.....for the U.O.I
Ms. Suchishmita Ghosh Chatterjee
...for the RBI
Mr. Tanmay Sett
Ms. Suchita Das
...for the applicant in CAN 36 & 37 of 2025
Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty
... ... for the petitioner in WPA 3268 of 2016
Mr. Anirban Ray
Mr. Shudhakar Nag
Mr. Sidharta Shharma
Mr. Rishav Dutt
Ms. Patrali Ganguly
... ... for the applicant in CAN 28 of 2025
In Re: WPA 27005 of 2016
1. The instant matters, collectively revolving around
the Rose Valley Group of Companies scam, have been
pending before this Court since 2016, involving a
plethora of writ petitions, civil applications and
connected original side matters concerning the
monetization of assets, protection of depositors'
interests and forensic auditing of the Asset Disposal
Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "ADC")
accounts. The core dispute stems from allegations of
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 5-
financial malpractices by the Rose Valley Group, leading
to attachment of assets worth approximately Rs. 20,000
to 30,000 crores by the Enforcement Directorate
(hereinafter referred to as the "ED") and the subsequent
constitution of the ADC under the Chairmanship of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Dilip Kumar Seth to oversee
identification, sale and disbursement of proceeds to
aggrieved depositors. This Court has, through a series of
orders, endeavoured to ensure transparency,
accountability and expeditious justice to thousands of
depositors who have been defrauded of their hard-
earned money.
2. Vide order dated September 19, 2025, this Court
took note of a preliminary report submitted by the
Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to
as the "CBI") highlighting the need for forensic auditing
of the ADC's records due to grievances over delays in
asset monetisation, lack of audit transparency and
procedural lapses in managing attached assets. The
CBI, lacking technical expertise, suggested constitution
of a team of experts, while the ED's involvement was
objected to as one of its officers was part of the ADC.
This Court, recognising the imperative of independent
scrutiny given the colossal public funds involved,
directed the Securities and Exchange Board of India
(hereinafter referred to as the "SEBI") to undertake the
forensic audit under the leadership of Mr. Mitrajeet Dey,
Deputy General Manager, SEBI Eastern Regional Office,
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 6-
with assistance from select Chartered Accountant firms
as suggested by the ED, if deemed necessary. This
directive aligns with the approach in Subrata
Chattoraj vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 8 SCC
768, where the Supreme Court, addressing a similar
multi-state chit-fund scam, transferred investigations to
the CBI, which was thereby directed to conduct
comprehensive probes including forensic audits to trace
money trails and unravel larger conspiracies. The audit
was to cover all transactions, records and agreements
pertaining to ADC's asset disposals, with a report
mandated within one month.The audit was to cover all
transactions, records and agreements pertaining to
ADC's asset disposals, with a report mandated within
one month.The firms as suggested by ED are as follows:
i. G.P. Agarwal & Co., ICAI REG NO- 302082E, 07 A,
2nd Floor, Kiran Shankar Ray Road, Kolkata - 700
001.
ii. Kothari & Company (CA), ICAI REG NO- 307069E,
16A, Shakespeare Sarani, New BK Market, 5th Floor,
Kolkata - 700 071.
iii. M/s. V. Singh & Associates, ICAI REG NO- 311017E,
Four Mangoe Lane, Surendra Mohan Ghosh Sarani,
Ground Floor, Kolkata - 700 001.
iv. Mookherjee Biswas & Pathak, ICAI REG NO-
301138E, 5 & 6, Fancy Lane, 5th Floor, Kolkata 700
001.
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 7-
v. H.P. Jhunjhunwala & Co., ICAI REG NO- 302139E,
907, Marshal House, 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road,
Kolkata 700 001.
vi. S.K. Agarwal & Co., ICAI REG NO- 306033E, 1865
Rajdanga Main Road, The Chambers, 6th Floor,
Kolkata 700 107.
vii. M/s. Singhi & Co., ICAI REG NO- 302049E, Emerald
House, 4th Floor, R. No. 30, IB, Old Post Office Street,
Kolkata 700 001.
3. Subsequent developments, as recorded in the order
dated December 4, 2025, revealed persistent challenges
in securing an effective forensic audit mechanism. The
ADC submitted a belated and incomplete audit report,
failing to reflect the current financial positions of
accounts holding properties worth Rs. 3,000 crores,
prompting this Court's serious concern over the
transparency and accountability. SEBI declined to
conduct the audit per se, citing absence of qualified
forensic personnel and its practice of delegating such
tasks to external agencies. Similarly, the Comptroller
and Auditor General of India (hereinafter referred to as
"CAG") refused vide letter dated November 20, 2025,
stating its mandate under Articles 148, 149 and 151 of
the Constitution and the Comptroller and Auditor
General's (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service)
Act, 1971, is confined to government
receipts/expenditures and not non-governmental
entities like Rose Valley Group companies. The Finance
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 8-
Department, State of West Bengal, also declined due to
lack of in-house expertise.
4. In light of these refusals and the paramount need to
safeguard public interest, this Court, vide order dated
December 4, 2025, assigned the forensic audit to the
Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter referred
to as "SFIO"), a statutory body constituted under
Section 211 of the Companies Act, 2013, functioning
under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), Central
Government, with a mandate to investigate company
frauds. Directions were issued for SEBI, CBI, ED and
depositors to extend full cooperation, with the forensic
audit report due within three months and a preliminary
report on the next hearing date, i.e., December 11,
2025. The ADC was permitted to continue
disbursements at Rs. 10,200 per claim from the
depositors' account holding Rs. 460,13,38,979/-.
5. It is seen from the report filed by the Learned ASG,
appearing for the Union of India and SFIO,that he is
objecting to the assignment of forensic audit to SFIO,
relying on the statutory framework under the
Companies Act, 2013. The SFIO's investigative powers
are activated only upon the Central Government's
opinion under Section 212(1), which permits
assignment of company investigations: (a) on receipt of
report from Registrar/Inspector under Section 208; (b)
on company's special resolution; (c) in public interest; or
(d) on request from Central/State Government
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 9-
department. In this regard, the report filed by the
Learned ASG dated December 11, 2025 from Piyush
Kumar, Sr. Prosecutor, SFIO, Kolkata, is states as
under:
"Sir,
I am directed to forward the note for the perusal for Ld.
ASG for making submission before the Hon'ble High Court
at Calcutta as the captioned matter is listed tomorrow i.e.
11.12.2025 at 02:00 PM.
Regards
Piyush Kumar Sr. Prosecutor Serious Fraud Investigation
Office Corporate Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Plot No. IIIF/16, IN
AA-IIIF, Rajarhat, New Town, Akandakeshari, Kolkata-
700135.
Factual note in the matter of Rose Valley Group
pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta:
1. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter
referred as the "SFIO"), is a statutory investigation office
constituted and established under section 211 of the
Companies Act, 2013 which acts under the aegis of the
Central Government (i.e. the Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
the "MCA"), with a mandate to investigate frauds relating
to companies.
2. SFIO can investigate into the affairs of a company
only when the Central Government is of the opinion that
such an investigation is necessary under Section 212(1)
of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 212(1) of the
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 10 -
Companies Act, 2013 is reproduced below for ready
reference:-
"212. Investigation into affairs of Company by Serious
Fraud Investigation Office - (1) Without prejudice to the
provisions of section 210, where the Central Government
is of the opinion, that it is necessary to investigate into
the affairs of a company by the Serious Fraud
Investigation Office-
(a) on receipt of a report of the Registrar or inspector
under section 208;
(b) on intimation of a special resolution passed by a
company that its affairs are required to be investigated;
(c) in the public interest; or
(d) on request from any Department of the Central
Government or a State Government, the Central
Government may, by order, assign the investigation into
the affairs of the said company to the Serious Fraud
Investigation Office and its Director, may designate such
number of inspectors, as he may consider necessary for
the purpose of such investigation."
3. Here it is pertinent to mention that SFIO is a
specialized multi-disciplinary agency with a mandate to
investigate and prosecute major financial malpractices in
such Companies only, whose investigation are allocated
to SFIO by the Central Government (i.e. MCA) under
Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013.
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 11 -
4. In view of foregoing, it is re-iterated that SFIO neither
have any mandate to conduct forensic audit nor possess
any expertise in this field."
6. Let the report filed by the Learned ASG be kept with
the records.
7. This Court has duly considered the statutory
provisions produced by the Learned ASG and the
delineated scope of SFIO. Section 212(1) indeed
preconditions SFIO intervention on Central
Government's satisfaction, inter alia, in public interest,
which aligns with the instant scenario involving massive
public funds defrauded from depositors across India.
Nonetheless, the objection underscores a procedural
gap, as no formal MCA order under Section 212 has
been issued, potentially limiting SFIO's operational
authority for a forensic audit distinct from full-fledged
investigation. The argument that SFIO possesses no
forensic audit expertise merits attention, given its
primary investigative focus.
8. At the outset, this Court reiterates its firm stance
that, since the ED is a contesting party in these
proceedings, with assets attached by it forming the
corpus under ADC management where one of the
officers is a part of ADC, this Court could not entrust
forensic audit to individual private Charter Accountants
despite ED's initial submission of a list of private
Chartered Accountant firms. Appointing private entities
for auditing transactions involving thousands of crores
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 12 -
of public money would undermine public trust, invite
perceptions of bias and fail to ensure the requisite level
of governmental oversight and accountability. Private
firms, however eminent, lack the statutory imprimatur
and resources to handle such scale without risking
conflicts of interest, especially in a high-profile matter
like this where multiple agencies are positioned
adversarially.
9. The repeated declinations by SEBI, CAG and State
Finance Department, coupled with CBI's admitted
incapacity, have exhausted viable alternatives,
compelling this Court to prioritize a government entity.
Public funds of this magnitude demand institutional
integrity and only a statutory body under Central aegis
can provide, preventing privatization of accountability
and ensuring compliance with judicial directives. The
SFIO, despite objections, emerges as the most apposite
given its specialised fraud investigation mandate under
the Companies Act, 2013, directly relevant to Rose
Valley's corporate malfeasance. Its multi-disciplinary
composition equips it better than ad hoc private setups
for dissecting complex financial trails.
10. Judicial precedents affirm this Court's power under
Article 226 to direct statutory agencies for public
interest, audits where urgency and expertise converge,
subject to statutory harmony. Public interest and equity
furnishes ample justification, as depositors' rights
cannot be left in limbo. This Court's supervisory
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 13 -
jurisdiction over ADC, constituted by it, extends to
mandating audits for transparency, overriding hyper-
technical objections when justice demands expedition.
11. Notwithstanding the Learned ASG's submissions,
this Court remains unyielding in its view that the
forensic audit shall be conducted exclusively by a
government agency to uphold sanctity of public funds.
Accordingly, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office
(SFIO),Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), through the
Learned ASG of India is requested to direct to undertake
the comprehensive forensic audit of the ADC's accounts,
all sales transactions of movable/immovable assets
attached by ED (valued at Rs. 20,000-30,000 crores)
and related financial records. SFIO shall deploy
necessary personnel, leveraging its investigative
mandate within three months and furnish a preliminary
report on January 06, 2026 without fail.
12. The Union of India, through MCA, is urged to issue
expeditious orders in public interest, designating
concerned for forensic audit. SFIO Officers, ASG, SEBI,
CBI, ED, ADC, Rose Valley representatives and all
depositors shall extend unconditional cooperation,
supplying documents, data and access within 7 days of
SFIO requisition. The final report shall be submitted
within 90 days.
13. Let the matter again appear on the list on January
6, 2026 when the learned ASG will file the preliminary
report on forensic audit.
WPA 27005 of 2016 - 14 -
In Re: CAN 39 of 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the
respondents. The applicant seeks modification of the
order dated 16th January, 2025 by setting aside the sale of Behala Property, cancellation of sales conducted by the Asset Disposal Committee (hereinafter referred to as "ADC") through SEBI pursuant to auction notices dated October 16, 2024 and May 22, 2025, directions to the Inspector-General of Registration for circle rate validation, fresh auction based on higher of valuation report or circle rate and disclosure of all valuation reports.
2. In Rose Valley Real Estates & Constructions Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.in W.P.No. 275 of 2015, this Court had suggested the constitution of an ADC for supervising the sale of assets of the petitioner, to which both the petitioner/applicant and the State had agreed in principle. The petitioner/applicant had offered to dispose of its assets for repaying investors and this Court accepted such offer in the interest of the investors.
3. This Court has noted certain irregularities in the asset disposal and management processes by the ADC and SEBI, as highlighted in the applicant's submissions and the relied-upon judgments, including Kerala Financial Corpn. v. Vincent Paul reported in (2011) 4 SCC 171, which emphasises proper valuation, public WPA 27005 of 2016 - 15 -
participation in auctions, transparency and securing the best price for public properties.
4. However, this Court has already directed a forensic audit of the entire process and the forensic auditor's report remains pending. In light of the ongoing forensic audit, no further directions can be issued at this stage on the prayers (b) to (f) of the application.
5. The application being CAN 39 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the applicant to seek appropriate relief upon submission of the forensic audit report.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)