No Relief For Jay Corporation Ltd Director In Investor Fraud Case: SC Upholds Bombay HCs SIT Probe Order
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has refused to grant relief to Jay Corporation Ltd and its director, Anand Jain, in connection with an alleged Rs 2,400 crore investor fraud case. The apex court upheld the Bombay High Court’s order directing a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the allegations against Jain, who is accused of misleading public investors in real estate projects.
SC Finds No Reason To Interfere In HC’s Decision
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stated that the Bombay High Court had acted within its jurisdiction in ordering an SIT investigation, given the seriousness of the allegations. “We admire and appreciate the courage with which the High Court has passed the order. This is what is expected of any High Court,” the apex court observed.
The court ruled that the directive to the CBI’s Mumbai Zonal Director to investigate the matter was legally sound and found no justification to interfere at this stage.
It also clarified that if an FIR is registered in the case, Jay Corporation Ltd and its associates could approach the appropriate legal forum to challenge it.
Bombay HC’s Directive for SIT Probe
In January, the Bombay High Court instructed the CBI’s Mumbai Zonal Director to form an SIT to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations against Jain and Jay Corporation Ltd. This directive came in response to a petition filed by businessman Shoaib Richie Sequeira, who accused Jain and his company of misusing public funds, misleading investors, and engaging in money laundering by diverting advances to subsidiaries.
Sequeira claimed that despite filing complaints with the Mumbai Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) on December 22, 2021, and April 3, 2023, no impartial investigation was conducted, prompting him to seek judicial intervention. The HC found the allegations significant enough to warrant investigation under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
EOW’s Investigation Under Scrutiny
The Supreme Court noted that the Bombay High Court had expressed dissatisfaction with the EOW’s handling of the case. The HC criticized the agency’s investigation methods, pointing out that it failed to conduct a legally compliant preliminary inquiry. This prompted the HC to order an SIT probe to ensure an independent and unbiased investigation, uninfluenced by prior court observations.
SC Rejects Jay Corporation’s Legal Arguments
During the Supreme Court hearing, senior advocates Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi, and Amit Desai represented Jay Corporation Ltd. Desai argued that the Bombay High Court’s order exceeded the scope of the original petition, which had only sought a preliminary probe. He contended that the HC’s expansion of the case into a full-fledged investigation was unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of legal process.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, ruling that the High Court’s directive for an SIT probe was justified given the nature of the allegations and the inadequacies in the EOW’s initial investigation.
