Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeCompany & PMLASupreme Court Questions Probe Into Indiabulls Allegations, Grants CBI and Delhi Police...

Supreme Court Questions Probe Into Indiabulls Allegations, Grants CBI and Delhi Police EoW One Final Opportunity to File Status Report

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed strong dissatisfaction with the response of investigating agencies while hearing a petition seeking a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into allegations of siphoning of funds, round-tripping, large-scale corporate irregularities and violations of the Companies Act by Indiabulls, its promoters and related entities.

During the hearing, the Bench led by the Chief Justice questioned the apparent inaction of the investigating agencies despite the seriousness of the allegations placed before the Court.

“What is shocking to us is that agencies are quiet. Definitely this is a case for quid pro quo. You are completely silent… What is coming on record is about respondent No. 8. What about respondent No. 7 and others? File a status report,” the Chief Justice observed.

Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026

Appearing for the investigating agencies, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju denied that the agencies had remained inactive and assured the Court that their position would be explained on affidavit.

“Not at all. I will put it in my affidavit,” the ASG submitted.

The Bench nevertheless expressed serious reservations regarding the manner in which the investigation had progressed.

“The conduct of the CBI and the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police is highly questionable. The way they have worked is shocking,” the Chief Justice remarked.

Justice Bagchi also questioned the pace of the investigation, observing that in an ordinary criminal case a report would ordinarily be ready within two weeks.

“In a regular crime case your report will be ready in two weeks. Please register a regular crime case,” Justice Bagchi observed.

The Chief Justice further noted that the conduct of the investigating agencies in the present matter was difficult to reconcile with the manner in which they routinely seek relief before the Supreme Court.

“CBI and ED have repeatedly approached this Court. But now the conduct cannot be explained,” the Chief Justice observed.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Supreme Court modified its earlier order after noting that no status report had yet been filed. Recording the assurance given by the ASG, the Bench granted the agencies one final opportunity to comply.

The Court observed that, had it not been persuaded by the submissions of the ASG, it would have summoned the heads of the concerned agencies. Instead, it granted one last opportunity to file the status report before taking any further course of action.

The matter will be listed for further hearing after the investigating agencies place their status report on record.

Read More: Digital Receipt of TPO Order Triggers Limitation U/s 153(5A): ITAT

Amit Sharma
Amit Sharma
Amit Sharma is the Content Editor at JurisHour. He has been writing about the Indian legal market. He has covered tax & company litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and Various Tribunals. Amit graduated from MLSU Law College with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. from MLSU, Udaipur, Rajasthan. An Advocate in Taxation, and practised in Tribunals as well as Rajasthan High Court and pursued Masters in Constitutional Law. He started out small with little resources but a big plan to take tax legal education to the remotest locations across India and eventually to the world. His vision is to make tax related legal developments accessible to the masses.

Latest articles

Personal Hearing Can’t Precede Deadline for GST Notice Reply: Uttarakhand High Court Quashes S. 73 Order

The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a GST assessment order after finding that...

GST Rectification Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because 3 Month Timeline Expired; Authority Doesn’t Become Functus Officio: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that a GST rectification application filed within the...

Electricity Charges Arise Only After Supply and Billing; Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 57.74 Lakh Demand for Unreleased Additional Load

The Supreme Court has rejected an electricity distribution company’s attempt to recover ₹57.74 lakh...

Refund of Interest Paid on GST Liability Discharged Through ITC: GSTAT Restrains State Benches From Deciding Appeals

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has restrained...

More like this

Personal Hearing Can’t Precede Deadline for GST Notice Reply: Uttarakhand High Court Quashes S. 73 Order

The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a GST assessment order after finding that...

GST Rectification Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because 3 Month Timeline Expired; Authority Doesn’t Become Functus Officio: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that a GST rectification application filed within the...

Electricity Charges Arise Only After Supply and Billing; Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 57.74 Lakh Demand for Unreleased Additional Load

The Supreme Court has rejected an electricity distribution company’s attempt to recover ₹57.74 lakh...