Alchemist Infra Realty Limited vs Jharkhand Against Corruption And Others

Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, the learned counsel for the intervenor-applicants seeks adjournment.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the review petitioner is seeking adjournment on the ground that he has been instructed to engage a senior

counsel in this matter.

This case has a history. The review petition seeking review of the order dated 11.5.2015 passed in WP(PIL) No. 1635 of 2014 was filed on

22.07.2015 and by an order dated 05.08.2015 notice was issued in this matter.

The order dated 05.08.2015 reads as under:

This Civil Review application has been preferred for review of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No.1635 of 2014 dated 11th

May, 2015, mainly on the ground that this applicant was not heard and was not joined as party-respondent and the investigation has been

handed over to the C.B.I.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that sizable amount has already been paid by this petitioner to the persons who are legally

entitled to receive, which is at Rs.1127.00 Crores. This principal amount has been paid with interest and counsel for the applicant has

referred several documents annexed with the memo of this review application.

Notice upon respondents.

Mr. Jai Prakash, learned counsel for the State, waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.

Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate, waives notice for respondent No.1.

For rest of the respondents, notice to be served by ordinary process, for which requisites, etc must be filed within one week.

Notice is made returnable on 8th of September, 2015.

Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, is seeking time to file reply which will be filed on or before the next date of

hearing.

In the meantime, we hereby stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 1635 of

2014 dated 11th May, 2015, so far as this applicant is concerned. This stay will be operative till next date of hearing.

On the next date of hearing, that is, on 08.09.2015, a prayer for adjournment was made by the review petitioner on the ground that a Special Leave

Petition has been filed against the order dated 11.05.2015 and, accordingly, hearing of this civil review petition was adjourned for 28.10.2015.

Thereafter, hearing of this review petition has been adjourned on several occasions. On 28.10.2015, 9.12.2015, 22.2.2016 and 18.05.2016, the matter

was adjourned at the instance of both the parties. Thereafter, this matter has been adjourned on all subsequent dates at the instance of the petitioner,

except on 26.3.2018, 25.6.2018 and 03.10.2018 when at the request of the learned counsel for the applicants and the respondent no. 1 the matter was

adjourned for a future date.

In view of above, we are not inclined to adjourn hearing of this civil review petition.

We have first taken up the Interlocutory Applications which have been filed by the investors.

I.A. No. 7091 of 2018, I.A. No. 8625 of 2018 and I.A. No. 7846 of 2018.

Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey the learned counsel appears for the intervenors in I.A. No. 7091 of 2018 and I.A. No. 8625 of 2018 and Mr. Praveen

Kumar Rana, the learned counsel appears for the intervenor in I.A. No. 7846 of 2018.

The learned counsels submit that the applicants have deposited money with M/s Alchemist Infra Realty Limited and an agreement was executed

between both the parties under which M/s Alchemist Infra Realty Limited was required to pay back the deposit with interest either on the maturity

date or at fixed intervals. The learned counsels further submit that previously the applicants have filed complaints against M/s Alchemist Infra Realty

Limited and after the order dated 11.05.2015 passed by this Court in WP (PIL) 1635 of 2014, they have again filed complaints before the authorities.

Mr. Indirajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that stand of M/s Alchemist Infra Realty Limited has been recorded in the

order dated 17.12.2018 and it has filed Interlocutory Application No. 774 of 2019 in which it has been stated that a sum of Rs. 1483.36 crores has

already been refunded to the investors and to rest of the investors, their money as payable to them, shall be paid to them.

From the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we find that the applicants have substantial interest in the outcome of this

review petition; they are proper parties.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 7091 of 2018, I.A. No. 8625 of 2018 and I.A. No. 7846 of 2018 are allowed, however, the applicants are not permitted to

file any further affidavit, though a liberty is reserved with them to raise their claim before SEBI.

I.A. No. 7835 of 2018, I.A. No.7836 of 2018, I.A. No. 7837 of 2018, I.A. No. 7838 of 2018, I.A. No. 7839 of 2018, I.A. No. 7840 of 2018,

I.A. No. 7841 of 2018, I.A. No. 7842 of 2018, I.A. No. 8295 of 2018, I.A. No. 8142 of 2018, I.A. No. 8141 of 2018, I.A. No. 8140 of

2018, I.A. No. 8951 of 2018, I.A. No. 8950 of 2018, I.A. No. 8949 of 2018, I.A. No. 8946 of 2018, I.A. No. 8954 of 2018, I.A. No. 8953

of 2018, I.A. No. 8952 of 2018, I.A. No. 8945 of 2018, I.A. No. 9041 of 2018, I.A. No. 9043 of 2018, I.A. No. 9042 of 2018, I.A. No.

9044 of 2018, I.A. No. 9045 of 2018, I.A. No. 9046 of 2018, I.A. No. 9047 of 2018, I.A. No. 9048 of 2018, I.A. No. 9049 of 2018, I.A.

No. 9078 of 2018, I.A. No. 9079 of 2018, I.A. No. 9080 of 2018, I.A. No. 10808 of 2018, I.A. No. 11212 of 2018, I.A. No. 11214 of 2018,

I.A. No. 11248 of 2018

In the above applications for intervention, no one appears to press many of these applications.

In view of the order passed in the other three applications, we do not find it necessary to pass order in all the applications separately.

Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants in some of these applications has made similar submissions.

The applicants have asserted that they have deposited money with M/s. Alchemist Infra Realty Limited on a promise made by it that money

deposited by them shall be paid back to them at regular intervals or on expiry of the maturity period, however, money so deposited by them was not

returned to them as promised by the review petitioner.

The order dated 21.6.2013 passed by SEBI, Mumbai has been brought on record. This order reflects that the statutory authority has already

passed an order directing M/s. Alchemist Infra Realty Limited to deposit the money. Though the review petitioner has filed appeal against the order

dated 21.06.2013, it shall not preclude an individual investor from making appropriate application before SEBI seeking refund of money deposited by

him. Moreover, the stand taken by the captioned intervention-applicants which, according to Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, the learned counsel, is

identical to the case set up by the applicants in I.A. No. 7091 of 2018, I.A. No. 8625 of 2018 and I.A. No. 7846 of 2018 and, therefore, they are not

required to be heard separately.

In view of the order passed in I.A. No. 7091 of 2018, I.A. No. 8625 of 2018 and I.A. No. 7846 of 2018, we are of the opinion that while hearing

this review petition, it may not be proper for this Court to entertain all the applications on behalf of every depositor; their claim cannot be adjudicated in

this proceeding. The claim made by the investors that they have deposited money with M/s. Alchemist Infra Realty Limited which amount should be

refunded to them can be raised by them before SEBI, which is the statutory authority.

Accordingly, all the Interlocutory Applications, vide I.A. No. 7835 of 2018, I.A. No.7836 of 2018, I.A. No. 7837 of 2018, I.A. No. 7838 of 2018,

I.A. No. 7839 of 2018, I.A. No. 7840 of 2018, I.A. No. 7841 of 2018, I.A. No. 7842 of 2018, I.A. No. 8295 of 2018, I.A. No. 8142 of 2018, I.A. No.

8141 of 2018, I.A. No. 8140 of 2018, I.A. No. 8951 of 2018, I.A. No. 8950 of 2018, I.A. No. 8949 of 2018, I.A. No. 8946 of 2018, I.A. No. 8954 of

2018, I.A. No. 8953 of 2018, I.A. No. 8952 of 2018, I.A. No. 8945 of 2018, I.A. No. 9041 of 2018, I.A. No. 9043 of 2018, I.A. No. 9042 of 2018,

I.A. No. 9044 of 2018, I.A. No. 9045 of 2018, I.A. No. 9046 of 2018, I.A. No. 9047 of 2018, I.A. No. 9048 of 2018, I.A. No. 9049 of 2018, I.A. No.

9078 of 2018, I.A. No. 9079 of 2018, I.A. No. 9080 of 2018, I.A. No. 10808 of 2018, I.A. No. 11212 of 2018, I.A. No. 11214 of 2018, I.A. No. 11248

of 2018, are disposed of with a liberty to the investors to avail remedy as available to them in law including a liberty to approach SEBI.

Civil Review No. 92 of 2015

Respondent No.1, which is the writ petitioner, has filed its counter-affidavit.

As noticed above, today is the 31st date of hearing, however, on behalf of the other respondents affidavits have yet not been filed.

The learned counsels appearing for the Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi and the Director (Investigation), Income Tax, Ranchi are not

present in the court. They have also not filed their respective response to this review petition.

Sri Rajiv Nandan Prasad, the learned counsel who appears for CBI, on court’s query, submits that counter-affidavit has not been filed by the

CBI for the reason that the respondent-CBI is challenging maintainability of this review petition.

We find that this stand of the respondent-CBI is reflected in the order dated 03.10.2018; that was 26th date of hearing, but even today no

application raising a preliminary objection has been filed.

The order dated 03.10.2018 reads as under:

“1. Learned counsel for the Central Government has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Review Applications,

based upon a judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E. Shivakumar Vs. Union of India & ors., as reported in

(2018)7 SCC 365.

However, at the request of learned counsel for the applicant, these matters are adjourned on 20th November, 2018â€​

The respondents are directed to file their respective counter affidavits within a period of next six weeks keeping in view the order dated 5.8.2015 by

which operation of the order dated 11.5.2015 passed in WP(PIL) No. 1635 of 2014 has been stayed by a co-ordinate bench of this court but no

application for vacating the stay has been preferred by the respondents.

Post this matter under the heading “Final Disposalâ€​ on 13.02.2020.

In view of the order passed by this Court in the Interlocutory Applications, Registry is directed not to register any interlocutory application filed by

an individual seeking his impleadment in the present matter, except with permission of the court.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the respondents at the address mentioned in the memo of parties.

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsels appearing for the parties.