Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Order, Allows CBI Investigation into Fraud Allegations against IRB Expressway Private Limited

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified its previous order and granted permission for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation into allegations of massive fraud by IRB Expressway Private Limited. The court allowed an Intervention Application seeking clarification of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2022, filed by Edapaddi Palaniswami. The applicant had expressed concerns that the previous order might hinder the desired CBI investigation into the alleged fraud. However, the court clarified that the order had no bearing on the applicant's complaint and granted permission for the investigation to proceed.

The applicant alleged that IRB Expressway Private Limited, in connivance with officials from the State of Maharashtra, had fraudulently obtained relief of approximately Rs. 70 crores by falsely claiming exemption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant had issued a notice to IRB, which denied the allegations and provided explanations along with supporting correspondence. The court examined the applicant's contentions and noted that reduction in payment of premium by IRB was allowed by the authorities due to the complete closure of toll plazas, including the one in question, following the government's orders during the pandemic. The court observed, "Complaint to be considered on its own merits... the judgment and order dated 03.08.2022... will have no bearing on the same."

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the applicant had no locus standi to seek clarification or modification of an order passed in an unrelated matter. Dismissing the application, the court stated, "The application is totally misconceived."

The judgment brings relief to the applicant and allows for a thorough investigation into the allegations of fraud. It reaffirms the court's commitment to ensuring that complaints are considered on their own merits and that relevant orders are not misinterpreted or misapplied. The CBI investigation will shed light on the allegations made against IRB Expressway Private Limited and any potential collusion with government officials, thus upholding the principles of justice and accountability.

Date of Decision: March 24, 2023

EDAPADDI PALANISWAMI  VS R.S.BHARATHI & ANR.

Latest Legal News