The Calcutta High Court has questioned the performance and expenditure of a committee handling the chit fund case, asking how much money has been returned to depositors and what action has been taken to identify and protect the assets of companies linked to the case. The court directed the committee, headed by Justice S P Talukdar, to submit a detailed report at the next hearing on November 19.
A division bench comprising Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Sudip Deb expressed dissatisfaction with the committee’s functioning over the past 12 years, according to the report. The court questioned whether public money was being spent without adequate results and sought a clearer account of the committee’s work.
The hearing examined three central issues: the number of companies among the 103 entities referred to the committee, the total value of their assets and the number of depositors who are still awaiting repayment. The court also sought details of how many depositors had applied for repayment, as this would determine the possibility of distributing money proportionately.
Depositors’ lawyer Arindam Das said the hearing also covered the number of people who had received money and the amount that remained outstanding. The report cited Rose Valley as an example, noting that the group had 54 companies and that all linked companies and their financial assets would need to be identified.
The court warned that delays in identifying assets could allow them to be transferred or sold. It referred to allegations concerning approximately ₹54 crore worth of VBGIORE assets in the Dooars region. Although the property was reportedly under the committee’s control, it was sold in 2025, and the court was told that no action had followed despite the committee receiving a complaint.
The bench also rejected the committee’s argument that a shortage of staff had affected its performance. The court noted that the committee had 24 employees and 13 data-entry operators, yet progress remained inadequate.
During the hearing, the court estimated that if the committee spent about ₹10 crore a year, its expenditure over 12 years would exceed approximately ₹120 crore. Against this, only ₹96 crore had reportedly been returned to depositors. The bench questioned whether such an outcome could be accepted when the expenditure came from public revenue.
The court said it had not been constituted to favour influential depositors and identified the repayment of small depositors as the priority. It specifically referred to people who had deposited ₹5,000 or ₹10,000 and observed that lower- and middle-income depositors often could not afford to appoint lawyers. The court said protecting their interests was therefore its responsibility.
The committee has been directed to use the powers available to it and submit a detailed account of its work, asset identification, repayment progress and pending claims at the November 19 hearing.
