The Calcutta High Court has questioned the performance of a committee handling chit-fund cases, raising concerns about the recovery of depositors’ money, protection of seized assets and the use of public funds over the past 12 years.
A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Sudip Deb expressed dissatisfaction with the working of the committee headed by Justice S.P. Talukdar, according to the report. The court questioned what the committee had achieved since its formation and whether public revenue was being spent without adequate results.
The hearing focused on the number of depositors who have received money, the amount still outstanding and the properties seized or identified in connection with the cases. Depositors’ lawyer Arindam Das told the court that 103 entities had so far been referred to the committee, but the total number of companies connected with those entities remained unclear.
The court specifically highlighted the need to identify all companies and trace their finances. In the case of Rose Valley, for example, 54 companies were involved, making it necessary to map each company and its assets before calculating recoverable funds.
The Bench also sought clarity on the total value of properties linked to the entities and the number of depositors involved. It asked how many depositors had applied for repayment, since that information would be necessary to determine proportional distribution of the recovered money.
The court said the repayment process should prioritise small depositors who had invested amounts such as Rs 5,000 or Rs 10,000. It observed that larger depositors could afford to appoint lawyers, while ordinary depositors often could not, placing a responsibility on the court to protect their interests. The court also said it was not dealing with the matter to provide special treatment to influential depositors.
Asset protection was another major concern during the hearing. The court referred to the alleged sale in 2025 of property belonging to Vibgyor in the Dooars, valued at approximately Rs 54 crore. The property was reportedly under the committee’s jurisdiction, and the court noted that no action had been taken despite complaints concerning the sale.
The Bench rejected the committee’s explanation that a shortage of staff was responsible for delays. It noted that the committee had 24 employees and 13 data-entry operators. The court then questioned the scale of expenditure in relation to the money returned to depositors.
Based on an estimated annual expenditure of Rs 10 crore, the court calculated that more than Rs 120 crore may have been spent over 12 years. Against this, only Rs 96 crore had reportedly been returned to depositors. The court said such an outcome could not be accepted if public revenue was being used for the process.
The Bench said the committee had sufficient powers and should use them to accelerate the work. It directed the committee to submit a detailed report at the next hearing on November 19, including information on companies, assets, depositors, applications, repayments and expenditure.
