Rashmi Sponge Iron And Power ... vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 667 Chatt

                                             1



                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                       Order Sheet
                                 WPC No. 2211 of 2016
                      Rashmi Sponge Iron And Power Industries Ltd.

                                         Versus

                                  Union of India & Others

                                        alongwith

                     WPC No. 2531/2016 and WPC No. 2273/2016



01/02/2023         During the course of submissions, Mr. Ashish Anand Bernard,

             learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that in the Criminal

             Case arising out of First Information Report (FIR) lodged by CBI

             against the petitioners and their Directors along with Officers of the

             respondents-SECL for offences under Sections 120B/ 420 IPC, read

with Section 13(2) / 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

the learned trial Court had acquitted the petitioners and their Directors

and the Officials of the respondents-SECL and that no appeal against

such acquittal was also preferred.

However, during the course of writing the judgment, no

pleadings were found on record to substantiate the aforesaid

submissions.

We are not commenting whether such submission would have

a bearing on the outcome of the cases. However, the argument

advanced on the basis of such submission has to be dealt with.

In order to seek a clarification on this aspect, the matters are

listed today under the heading "To be spoken to".

Mr. Ashish Anand Bernard, learned counsel for the petitioners

along with Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh as well as Ms. Astha

Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for respondents-SECL along with

Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, are present today.

Mr. Bernard fairly submits that due to inadvertence, the

aforesaid aspect of the matter was not placed on record. He seeks

indulgence of the Court to allow him to bring necessary pleadings and

the relevant documents on record.

While not opposing the indulgence sought by Mr. Bernard, as

noted above, Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the

respondents-SECL, also submits that she may also be permitted to

file reply in WPC No. 2531 of 2016, which was inadvertently not filed

earlier.

Prayers made by Mr. Bernard and Ms. Shukla are allowed.

Liberty is also granted to Ms. Shukla to respond to the

proposed affidavit sought to be filed by Mr. Bernard.

Mr. Bernard may also file rejoinder-affidavit to the reply to be

filed by Ms. Shukla.

Matters stands released from being heard-in-part.

List these cases in the Part-II hearing list in the week

commencing from 20.03.2023.

                     Sd/-                                  Sd/-
           (Arup Kumar Goswami)                  (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                Chief Justice                             Judge




Chandra