IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 383 OF 2011
Solomon Jemes and others .... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ....Respondents
O R D E R
1. The above mentioned writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India praying for following reliefs:
a) issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or
any other appropriate writ and/or direction to Respondent No.3 to
disburse the payments due to the Petitioners and other panelists
against the reward points earned by the panelists and also direct
to R4 to refund the subscription amounts due to the Petitioners and
other subscribers for the period the e-magazine was not provided;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or
any other appropriate writ and/or directing that the money so
collected from the panelists/subscribers be refunded them in toto
as being public money and any investigation shall not put an
embargo or hitch in the refund of the same in toto;
c) Issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or
any other appropriate writ and/or directing the appointment of an
independent committee or to R1 or R2 for the preservation,
regulation, monitoring and supervision of the huge public money
tentatively more than worth Rs.150 crores unless the same is being
refunded in toto to more than 1 million panelists and investors
spreaded all over the country including the present petitioners and
allowing them to participate in the business activities of the
Respondent No.3 to earn their day-to-day livelihood;
d) Issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or
any other appropriate writ and/or directing the said amount to be
deposited before this Hon'ble Court in interest accruing account;
e) Such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of
the case may require be passed.
2. We notice, pending this writ petition, few interim orders have been
passed by this Court. On 14.11.2011, this Court felt that the disputes
between the parties could be settled by way of mediation consequently a
former Chief Justice of India was requested to explore the possibility of
an amicable settlement of disputes between the parties and to submit a
report after the mediation proceedings are concluded. On 03.01.2012, it
was submitted before the Court that mediation proceedings had been
concluded and report sent to this Court. On 06.02.2012, this Court passed
an order directing the concerned respondents to deposit the amount
indicated by the Mediator with the Secretary General, Supreme Court. In
pursuance to that order, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 deposited an amount of US
$ 10 million by a bank draft bearing DD No. 037002 dated 20th February 2012
drawn on State Bank of India, Singapore Branch in favour of "The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India". This Court vide order dated 23.02.2012 directed
the Secretary General of this Court to deposit the amount in the UCO Bank,
Supreme Court Compound for a fixed period.
3. We have now gone through the affidavit filed by the Investigating
Officer, Economic Offences Wing (III), Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai on
13.03.2012 of which para 6 is of some relevance and hence extracted
hereunder:
"The answering Respondent further submits that the further
investigation by the Respondent No.6 has revealed the shocking
facts about the Petitioners that, out of the total Petitioners,
Petitioner No.3 are franchises of the Respondent No.3 and
Respondent No.4 who are shading the crocodile's tears who want
to create the ground that no cause of action arises against
Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 in India and therefore they
have approached this Hon'ble Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. Similarly, the Respondent Nos. 6 to 101
have invested the meager amount of Rs.11,000 each. Their
interrogation has revealed that the representatives of
Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 had approached them at their
respective addresses in Southern States and had assured them
that the money invested by them would be returned to them
provided they gave their signatures at two/three places as
required by them. Such Petitioners have claimed that they are
ignorant about any Petition filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India and the contents as well as the purpose thereof."
4. The affidavit also refers to a complaint filed by Shri
Navnit Tarachand KKhosla, Managing Director, TFIC Consultant Pvt. Ltd.,
Mumbai wherein he has alleged that he was cheated by the accused persons
for an amount of Rs.5.43 lacs in the Money Rolling of Speak Asia Online
Pvt. Ltd., knowing well that the accused company was a fraud and that
they had misappropriated the entire amount. The complainant further
alleged that the accused company had induced the people across India to
invest their hard earned money in the Ponzi/Money Rolling Scheme and
cheated 20 lac Indian investors. The above mentioned complaint was
registered by Nirmal Nagar Police Station as C.R. No. 153/11 under
Section 120(b) r/w 406, 420 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Prize Chit and
Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The case was later
transferred for investigation to EOW, CB, CID, Mumbai vide C.R. No.
60/2011.
5. Further, the affidavit also states that the records of Tulsiyat Tek
Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, Kritanj Management and Allied Services, Mumbai and
Seamless LLP, Mumbai all posed as Master franchise/collection agents for
accused company "Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd." show that the amount of more
than Rs.2276 crores is involved in the crime which was collected through
money rolling scheme. Further it was also stated that the accused persons
had transferred the funds to the tune of Rs.750 crores to the bank accounts
of Haren Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Singapore in the United Overseas Bank and HSBC
Bank Singapore through electronic mode.
Further para 20(b) of the affidavit states as follows:
"The answering Respondent further submits that there is no doubt
that, in the 115 petitioners list, some petitioners are the
victims of accused company "Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd." But
among the petitioners some viz. Petitioner Nos. 1,3 and 102 to
115 have joined with the crocodile tears. In fact the said
petitioners are found to be instrumental in running the alleged
money rolling scheme of Speak Asia Online and investing big
amounts of innocent members/investors. The relevant documents
have revealed the involvement of some of the Petitioners in the
alleged crime."
6. The Investigating Officer filed another affidavit on 15.09.2012
wherein it was stated that in connection with the crime, several persons
had been arrested and incriminating documents were seized and some persons
stated to have been involved in the crime are still at large and are not co-
operating with the investigation. The Enforcement Directorate had also
registered a case under Money Laundering Act against the accused company.
7. The counter affidavit further states that the accused persons had
misappropriated amount to the tune of Rs.2,276 crores out of which a sum of
Rs.141 crores had been frozen in several bank accounts in the name of so
called Master franchises/Collection agents and franchises throughout India.
8. We are of the view that in the light of the above facts this Court
is not justified in invoking its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India in working out any scheme for settling the disputes
which are criminal in nature. Possibly, noticing the above developments
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that he may be
permitted to withdraw the writ petition. We are granting the permission as
prayed for, but all the same, we make it clear that the investigation
initiated by the Enforcement Directorate would continue in accordance with
law so also the crime registered under EOW C.R. No. 60/11 under Section
406, 420, 120(b) of the IPC read with 3, 4, 5, 6 of Prize, Chit and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
9. We are also of the considered view that this is not a matter which
could be resolved by way of mediation. There are 115 petitioners before
us. Affidavit filed by the Investigating Officers states that above twenty
lakh persons have invested money. If the Court works out a scheme invoking
Article 32 of the Constitution of India in respect of the petitioners, then
this Court cannot turn a blind eye if other investors also come with a
similar petition. Consequently, the order passed by this Court on
14.11.2011 initiating mediation proceedings is recalled.
10. We have already indicated that on the basis of this Court's order
an amount of US $ 10million has been deposited by respondent Nos. 3 and 4
which is now lying in a fixed deposit in UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound,
which has to be returned to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is so ordered.
The proceedings initiated in writ petition No. 383 of 2011 therefore stands
concluded and the prayer of the counsel for the petitioners to withdraw the
writ petition is accordingly allowed, making it clear that whatever we have
stated above would not affect rights of the parties and the law will take
its own course. The writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
.......................J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
.......................J.
(Dipak Misra)
New Delhi,
September 19, 2012
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.12 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 383 OF 2011
SOLOMON JEMES & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for impleadment,stay and directions,intervention, permission
to file rejoinder affidavit,permission to file additional documents)
(FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
Date: 19/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek Sibal,Adv.
Mr. Sunil K. Tekriwal,Adv.
Dr. Mamta Tekriwal,Adv.
Ms. K.V.Bharathi Upadhyaya,Adv.
Mr. Rajiv K. Raj,Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari,Adv
For Applicants Mr. Amol N. Suryawanshi,Adv.
No.1 to 5
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Salve,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Dushyant Dave,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Indu Malhotra,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
Mr. Srisabari Rajan,Adv.
Ms. Aditi Bhat,Adv.
Ms. Chinmayee Chandra,Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Naphade,Sr.Adv.
Mr. B.H. Marlapalle,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kharde,Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv
Ms. Anita Bafna,Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Datta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Abhinav,Adv.
Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv
Ms. Gargi Khanna,Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balramdas,Adv.
Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar,Adv.
Mr. H.S. Parihar,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn in terms of
the signed order.
|(NARENDRA PRASAD) | |(RENUKA SADANA) |
|COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |
(Signed order is placed on the file)
1
Comments
Post a Comment