{"id":1525,"date":"2024-02-21T20:39:38","date_gmt":"2024-02-21T15:09:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1525"},"modified":"2024-02-21T20:39:38","modified_gmt":"2024-02-21T15:09:38","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-the-extraordinary-and-inherent-powers-of-the-court-do-not-confer-any-arbitrary-jurisdiction-on-the-court-to-act-according-to-its-whims-and-caprice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-the-extraordinary-and-inherent-powers-of-the-court-do-not-confer-any-arbitrary-jurisdiction-on-the-court-to-act-according-to-its-whims-and-caprice\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that the extraordinary and inherent powers of the court do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice"},"content":{"rendered":"

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT\u00a0 \u00a0 [<\/strong>APPELLANT(S)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>NIRAJ TYAGI & ORS.\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n

(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 843 OF 2024)<\/p>\n

(2JB, BELA M. TRIVEDI and PRASANNA B. VARALE JJ., delivered by BELA M. TRIVEDI J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The appellants being aggrieved by the interim orders dated 13.07.2023, 08.08.2023 and 13.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 10893\/2023, 11837\/2023 and 14053\/2023 respectively, have preferred the instant appeals. Vide the impugned orders, the High Court has stayed the proceedings of the FIRs registered against the concerned respondents-accused as also stayed the proceedings of ECIR No.-ECIR\/HIU-I\/06\/2023 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement against the concerned respondents, and further directed not to take any coercive action against the said respondents pending the said writ petitions. All the appeals being interconnected with each other, they were heard together and it would be appropriate to decide them by this common judgment.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the appeal is maintainable in the present case?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The ASG, Mr. Raju appearing for the appellant ED in all the three appeals vehemently submitted that this Court had passed the order dated 04.07.2023 in Gagan Banga\u2019s case staying the proceedings of ECIR and the FIRs registered against the concerned respondents without hearing the ED, and therefore the ED has filed a Review Petition, which is pending before this Court. He further submitted that the High Court also without assigning any cogent reasons in the impugned orders stayed the said proceedings of ECIR and FIRs under the guise of following the said order dated 04.07.2023 passed by this Court. Placing 11 heavy reliance on the decision of the Three-Judge Bench in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, he submitted that this Court has strongly deprecated the practice of the courts granting interim orders staying the investigation or directing the investigating agencies not to take coercive actions against the accused. The impugned orders passed by the High Court therefore being in the teeth of the said settled legal position, the same deserve to be quashed and set aside forthwith.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The learned Senior counsels appearing for the respondents in the respective appeals, taking the Court to the proceedings which had taken place under the SARFAESI Act and before the High Court and this Court, submitted that the respondent-complainant Shipra Group having failed in all the said proceedings had taken recourse to the criminal proceedings to create a fear amongst the financial institution and its officers. They further submitted that the High Court taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in Gagan Banga\u2019s case had rightly protected the financial institution and its officers who had discharged their duties for the recovery of the dues from the borrowers. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in K. Virupaksha and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another and in A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association vs. Ramesh Kumar Bung and Others , to submit that even in case of Neeharika Infrastructure (supra), the discretion has been conferred on the High Court to pass the interim orders in exceptional cases for not taking coercive steps against the accused pending the proceedings, particularly when the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated against the borrowers. According to them, bypassing the statutory remedies available to the borrowers or having failed in such proceedings, the borrowers should not be permitted to prosecute the financial institution or its officers or the purchasers just to instill a fear in their mind, which otherwise would have the potentiality to affect the marrows of economic health of the nation.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and held that, \u201cThe impugned orders passed by the High Court being not in consonance with the settled legal position, the same deserve to be set aside and are hereby set aside. The impugned interim orders passed by the High Court qua the concerned respondents-accused in the present appeals stand vacated forthwith. We may clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Writ Petitions which are pending before the High Court, and that it would be open for the concerned respondents-accused to take all legal contentions or take recourse to the legal remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT\u00a0 \u00a0 [APPELLANT(S)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 NIRAJ TYAGI & ORS.\u00a0 \u00a0[RESPONDENT(S)] (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 843 OF 2024) (2JB, BELA M. TRIVEDI and PRASANNA B. VARALE JJ., delivered by BELA M. TRIVEDI J.)   Facts: The appellants being aggrieved by the interim orders dated 13.07.2023, 08.08.2023 and 13.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1527,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1525","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1525","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1525"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1525\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1529,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1525\/revisions\/1529"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1527"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1525"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}