Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 16 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Appeals: APO/56/2026 (Sanjoy Somany & ors.), APO/57/2026 (Alok Taparia & ors.), APO/58/2026 (Amit Das) filed against Hindustan National Glass and Industries Limited (HNGIL) and other respondents.
  • Origin: All three appeals arise from the same impugned judgment and order dated 3 August 2026, wherein a learned Single Judge extended an ex‑parte ad interim injunction dated 16 June 2026, dismissed two applications for vacating the injunction, and invited affidavits in the injunction petition.
  • Plaintiff’s Position: The plaintiff, a limited liability company, seeks relief concerning the affairs of an Exempted Employees Provident Fund Trust (EEPF Trust). It argues that the EEPF Trust is a separate legal entity and, even if any defalcation occurred, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Companies Act, 2013 lacks jurisdiction because the Trust is not an “entity” within the meaning of the Act. It further contends that the ex‑parte injunction did not satisfy the three mandatory conditions, that the order directing SFIO investigation was unsupported by any pleading, and that there is no allegation of employer‑initiated defalcation. The plaintiff also alleges suppression of material fact by not disclosing a police complaint filed on 8 June 2026.
  • Respondent’s Position: The respondents (defendants nos. 1‑8) challenge the injunction and the SFIO direction, asserting procedural improprieties and prejudice.
  • Financial Claims: The suit seeks recovery of money – first prayer for a sum exceeding Rs 20 crores and second prayer for a sum exceeding Rs 35 lakhs, both against identified defendants.
  • Corporate Background: The plaintiff, being an existing company under the Companies Act, 2013, underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP); a Resolution Professional was appointed, a Resolution Plan approved, and the present management assumed control. Separate proceedings regarding the assumption of management are pending but not before this Court.
  • SFIO Investigation: The plaintiff’s senior counsel informed the Court that the SFIO had sent a communication dated 11 September 2026 requesting various documents.

Final Outcome

  • The Court modifies the impugned judgment dated 3 August 2026 by:

1. Staying the direction for SFIO investigation for a period of 15 days from the date of this order.

2. Limiting the operation of the impugned judgment and order until 31 December 2026.

3. Extending the time for filing affidavit‑in‑opposition to the injunction petition to one week from the date of this order, with any reply to be filed within two weeks thereafter.

4. Directing that the injunction petition be listed before the learned Trial Judge three weeks from now, if not already listed.

5. Stating that none of the parties shall seek any adjournment of the injunction hearing on any ground.

6. Providing that if the injunction petition is not heard and decided by 31 December 2026, the parties may apply to the Trial Judge for appropriate orders.

  • The appeals (APO/56/2026, APO/57/2026, APO/58/2026) and all pending applications are disposed of without any order as to costs.

Topics: Injunction, SFIO Investigation, Corporate Litigation