The court vacated the "limited stay" granted by a vacation bench on an application from the firm praying for staying the operation of a letter from the committee seeking documents of immovable properties from the company.
It termed as "inappropriate" the company's action in moving such an application when the court had by an earlier order directed that the committee would take steps to identify the firm's properties and further proceed to sell them.
A company director Uma Shanker had filed an application before the vacation bench seeking a stay on the operation of a letter dated December 21, 2017 issued by the committee calling for the original documents of immovable properties of the company.
The vacation bench passed a limited order of staying the letter issued by the committee.
When the matter came up for hearing recently, the first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose said if any of the parties were aggrieved by any directions passed by the court, the remedy was in approaching the Supreme Court by way of appeal or special leave petition.
"The respondents are bound to comply with the directions of the committee, which have in effect, been issued pursuant to the orders of this court," the court said.
The bench said it finds no ground at all either to modify its order appointing the committee or to stay the directions given by the committee.
It rejected the arguments of the counsel for the company directors that the high court had no jurisdiction and that provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Depositors (Financial Establishments) (TNPID) Act 1997 should take its course.
"The orders of this xourt have been passed taking into account the submissions that there was an enactment in place and we do not find any conflict between our order and the TNPID Act," the court said.
It clarified that TNPID Authorities may arrest the directors, if they deem it appropriate to do so and criminal proceedings may take their own course against the company and its erstwhile directors, notwithstanding the court orders.
The court had in October last year appointed retired Jammu and Kashmir High Court Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar as the head of the nine-member committee.
It had then said it shall function as the administrator of the company, facing action by the SEBI for some violation.
A total of over 12 lakh customers had invested more than Rs 1,137 crore in the schemes, but they were neither alloted the plots nor refunded the deposit money.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
