The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in the Tower Infotech Ltd. case marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle. The appeal against the bail granted to Ramendu Chattopadhyay, a key figure in the case, has been upheld. This decision comes after the Central Bureau of Investigation raised concerns about the large sums of money siphoned off from innocent investors by the accused company. The Court’s ruling sets a precedent for cases involving fraudulent investment schemes. #LegalCase #SupremeCourtIndia #CBI
Facts
- The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an appeal against the order granting bail to Ramendu Chattopadhyay in connection with a case involving Tower Infotech Ltd.
- The FIR was registered based on the findings of Writ Petition (Civil) No 401 of 2013 in Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India.
- Charges were filed against Ramendu Chattopadhyay, Ashis Chatterjee, and the accused company under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prizes and Chit Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.
- The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack granted bail to Ramendu Chattopadhyay without providing any reasons, leading to the CBI questioning this decision.
- During investigation, it was found that Ramendu Chattopadhyay, the accused company, and Ashis Chatterjee were liable to be chargesheeted for running collective investment schemes and cheating investors of a substantial amount.
Also Read: Priority of Employees’ Dues in Asset Sale: SARFAESI Act vs. Land Revenue Code
Arguments
- Shri Basanth, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent supports the impugned order
- The Respondent has not misused his liberty
- The Respondent has not interfered with the selling of company assets by the One-Man Committee
- It is argued that the Respondent is cooperating with the procedures
Also Read: Judgment Acquitting Accused in Satpal v. State of India
Analysis
- The accused was a key decision-making authority of the company and signed important documents and certificates for investors.
- Interim bail was extended multiple times, lastly until 09.11.2017.
- The accused was involved in promoting the company’s fraudulent activities and misappropriating funds.
- He was a founding director of the accused company and was directly involved in siphoning off money from investors.
- The accused misrepresented that the company had necessary permissions and paid higher returns to investors.
- The accused obstructed efforts to liquidate the company’s properties by not cooperating with the One-Man Committee for repayment to investors.
- Despite bail, no company assets could be sold, frustrating the purpose of the bail.
- The accused deceived investors by publishing brochures with false information about the company.
- The High Court should not have released the Respondent on bail due to large amounts of money being siphoned off from innocent investors.
- There is little chance of realizing any amount by selling the properties of the Tower Group of companies if the Respondent continues on bail, as he may use unlawful tactics to deter prospective buyers.
- The investigating agency has not assessed the exact total amount invested by the people of Orissa in the accused company, but the estimated amount may be around Rs. 350 Crores.
- Considering the material on record and the significant amount of money belonging to investors that has been siphoned off, the High Court’s decision to release the Respondent on bail is not justified.
Also Read: Landmark Supreme Court Judgment in Parasvanath Developers Ltd. v. Chandigarh Housing Board
Decision
- The impugned order granting interim bail to the Respondent is set aside
- The appeal is allowed and the bail bonds of the Respondent are cancelled
Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001711-001711 / 2019
