Supreme Court Declines to Entertain Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Setting Aside SFIO Investigation into Moser Baer Group [Read Order]
The Supreme Court refused to entertain pleas challenging both the Bombay High Court order due to delay and Delhi High Court decision quashing the SFIO investigation into Moser Baer.
![Supreme Court Declines to Entertain Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Setting Aside SFIO Investigation into Moser Baer Group [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/01/30/2122556-supreme-court-declines-entertain-plea-against-delhi-hc.webp "Supreme Court Declines to Entertain Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Setting Aside SFIO Investigation into Moser Baer Group [Read Order]")
The Supreme Court of India declined to entertain plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s order which set aside the Central Government’s direction for Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) investigation into affairs of Moser Baer India Ltd. and its group companies.The first challenge arose from a Bombay High Court judgment. The Karanartham Viramah (petitioner) approached the Supreme...
The Supreme Court of India declined to entertain plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s order which set aside the Central Government’s direction for Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) investigation into affairs of Moser Baer India Ltd. and its group companies.
The first challenge arose from a Bombay High Court judgment. The Karanartham Viramah (petitioner) approached the Supreme Court after a delay of 3299 days. The court observed that the same Bombay High Court order was challenged before it in 2017. That Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and also on merits.
The second challenge related to Delhi High Court judgment. In that case, the court set aside order passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and directed the Serious Fraud Investigation Office to investigate the affairs of Moser Baer India Ltd. and its group companies.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the Delhi High Court erred in quashing the SFIO investigation order and relied on earlier judgments to hold that the Central Government did not form opinion required under Section 212(1)(c). The court also held that additional reasons given later through affidavits cannot be considered.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that the Delhi High Court applied settled law. The Bench referred to Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner. The court observed that the power under Section 212(1)(c) cannot be exercised in a casual manner. The validity of such an order must be judged only on the reasons stated in the order itself.
The Supreme Court found no error in the Delhi High Court’s reasoning. The court declined to entertain the challenge and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
