File picture of the Seashore Company building, which was sealed by the CID-crime branch

Cuttack, Sept. 16: Orissa High Court today refused to consider a plea for opening the offices of a deposit-collection company sealed by the CID-crime branch, till the submission of details of the number of investors and the total amount of money collected by them.

The petition of Green Ray International Ltd was taken up for hearing along with petitions of other deposit-collection companies whose offices at different parts of the state had been sealed by the state CID-crime branch’s economic offences wing.

The court had, on August 5, directed the company to furnish details of its depositors indicating the total amount deposited by them.

An affidavit was submitted indicating 1.58 lakh investors with deposits amounting to Rs 215.45 crore.

The company’s counsel today sought opening of the company’s offices and business premises by submitting that it was ready and willing to pay Rs 21 crore towards maturity value amount due to investors whose deposits had matured.

The state counsel pointed out that the details submitted were only from 2011, but the company had started operating in the state in 2004.

Taking note of this, the division bench of Justice Pradip Mohanty and Justice Biswajit Mohanty posted the matter for hearing after two weeks along with details of investors and total investment since 2004.

“Unless a clear picture emerges on the total investment and number of investors involved, it will not be appropriate to pass any order,” the bench observed.

With a corporate office in New Delhi, the company had 40 branch offices in Odisha including its registered office at Jaleswar. The crime branch had sealed 13 branch offices of the company including its registered office at Jaleswar.

The company’s counsel pleaded that the furnishing of total investment by investors in the state was difficult because the registered office at Jaleswar had been sealed.

The court asked the company counsel to collect information from the branch offices and directed the investigating officer to co-operate with the company as and when necessary for collecting the details from the premises of the sealed offices.

The state government has been opposing the reopening of offices and business premises in the midst of investigation on the ground that it would vitiate the probe process.

Reopening the offices and business premises of the petitioner companies would not be in the interest of the general public and investors because there was a strong possibility that they may resume the same business, the state government contended.