Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 13 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Ravindra Kumar Singh (Chief Executive Officer of Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd) and another appellant (Managing Director of Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd) versus the State of Jharkhand & others.
  • Appeals: Criminal Appeal SLP (Crl.) No. 9961/2023 and SLP (Crl.) No. 10037/2023, challenging the High Court of Jharkhand’s common order dated 28 June 2023 that dismissed writ petitions under Article 226 in W.P. (Cr) No. 71 of 2019 and W.P. (Cr) No. 332 of 2017.
  • Background: FIRs were lodged for alleged illegal transport of iron rods (six trucks, 21 Jan 2015) and scrap/raw material (three trucks, 12 Aug 2017) belonging to M/s Abhijit Project Limited (now Path Breaking Project Limited). The offences invoked IPC sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 379, 411, 355 r/w Section 34 and Section 188.
  • High Court Findings: The High Court held that factual disputes regarding the validity of the sale, invoices and tax payments could not be decided in a writ petition and therefore dismissed the petitions, granting the appellants liberty to raise defences at trial.
  • Subsequent Development: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella Kharsawan, in G.R. No. 76 of 2015 (judgment dated 12 March 2026) acquitted all accused in the trial arising from P.S. Case No. 11 of 2015.
  • Counsel Submissions:
  • Senior counsel Navniti Prasad Singh (for the appellants) argued that the transactions were bona‑fide commercial sales supported by valid invoices, tax payments and prior intimation to authorities, and urged the Court to consider the CJM’s acquittal.
  • State counsel Vishnu Sharma (for the State of Jharkhand) contended that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that assets of the liquidated company were being sold without proper authorization, but did not dispute the CJM’s acquittal.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s 28 June 2023 order and restored the writ petitions.
  • The Court directed the High Court to rehear the writ petitions, taking into account the CJM’s 12 March 2026 judgment, within a period of three months.
  • The interim order dated 21 October 2024, which prohibits any coercive steps against the appellants, remains in force until the High Court’s fresh decision.
  • The Court expressly stated that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the criminal charges.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Criminal Law, Corporate Governance