GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG CO LTD v. REMI SALES AND ENGINEERING LTD.
High Court's Refusal to Direct FIR/Investigation Under Article 226: Prior Adjudications and Availability of Alternative Remedies Barred Relief.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:57711-DB
Decision Date: 24-12-2025
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act); Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Facts: The petitioner, Alpesh Navinchandra Gosalia, filed a criminal writ petition seeking directions to various authorities, including the State of Maharashtra, Union of India, SFIO, SEBI, RBI, Commissioner of Police, ED, and CBI, to register an FIR/ECIR or initiate proceedings for an independent investigation into alleged crimes committed by respondents 11 to 25 and 28 to 46 and their accomplices under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, and Foreign Exchange Management Act. The petitioner alleged financial frauds involving Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., Honest Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Ashdan Developers Pvt. Ltd., and others, including the siphoning off of public money.
- Procedural Posture: The case is a Criminal Writ Petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, seeking directions for investigation and registration of FIR/ECIR. The respondents opposed the petition, raising questions of maintainability, locus standi, and forum shopping, citing previous proceedings and adjudications on the same issues by various courts and tribunals, including the Debts Recovery Tribunal, NCLT, and the Supreme Court.
- Issue: Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the registration of a First Information Report and investigation by the CBI based on allegations of financial fraud, considering prior adjudications and pending proceedings on the same issues before various forums.
- Holding: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no reason to entertain it.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the petitioner's attempt to invoke Article 226 lacked foundation in law and was misdirected, as the High Court should not direct the registration of a criminal case except in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons, which were not established in this case. The Court noted that there were binding decisions of competent courts and tribunals on the same facts, and some proceedings were still pending. The Court also observed that the principle of double jeopardy was not applicable, and the petitioner was essentially seeking a roving inquiry into alleged financial frauds already examined by different forums. The Court emphasized that binding determinations and decisions of courts and tribunals should not be reopened, and judicial discipline and propriety are foundations for the rule of law. The dismissal of a Special Leave Petition affirming the Bombay High Court's judgment in related writ petitions was also considered a binding decision.
🔒 For Members Only