Territorial jurisdiction and constructive res judicata did not bar the writ; no fixed deadline was imposed on the SFIO investigation.

Part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, so the Calcutta HC held that Article 226(2) was satisfied and the writ was maintainable. Constructive res judicata did not apply because the earlier proceedings did not involve identical parties, identical reliefs, or a matter finally decided. On the SFIO investigation, section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 contains no fixed outer limit, so the Court would not stay the investigation or impose a rigid completion deadline, though it expected completion within a reasonable period. Limited protective directions were issued for compliance with Supreme Court CCTV directions and preservation of relevant CCTV evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by constructive res judicata and lacked territorial jurisdiction; (ii) Whether a stay of the SFIO investigation or a direction fixing a completion time frame could be granted; (iii) Whether directions could be issued regarding preservation of CCTV footage and compliance with the Supreme Court's CCTV-related directions.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by constructive res judicata and lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: Part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, including SFIO's visit to the petitioners' office and exchange of correspondence received within jurisdiction, satisfying Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The Calcutta writ petition also pre-dated the Gujarat proceedings. Constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires identity of parties and a matter finally decided in the former proceeding. Here, the parties were not identical, the reliefs were not the same, and the challenge to the Gujarat order was pending before the Supreme Court, so finality could not be assumed in the manner urged by the respondents.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and was not barred by constructive res judicata.

Issue (ii): Whether a stay of the SFIO investigation or a direction fixing a completion time frame could be granted.

Analysis: Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not prescribe any fixed outer limit for completion of an SFIO investigation or submission of the report. The statutory scheme contemplates a report to the Central Government under section 212(3), an interim report only if so directed under section 212(11), and a final report on completion under section 212(12), while section 212(13) only provides a right to seek a copy of the report. The Court therefore could not stay the investigation or impose a rigid completion period. At the same time, prolonged investigation justified an expectation that the SFIO should proceed within a reasonable time and with due regard to fairness.

Conclusion: No stay or fixed time frame for completion of the investigation was granted, though the SFIO was expected to complete the investigation within a reasonable period.

Issue (iii): Whether directions could be issued regarding preservation of CCTV footage and compliance with the Supreme Court's CCTV-related directions.

Analysis: The relief sought was not granted in the form requested insofar as it went beyond the scope of section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, but the SFIO was required to comply with the Supreme Court's directions concerning CCTV installation and preservation of evidence, including CCTV recordings relevant to the petitioners' interrogation.

Conclusion: Limited protective directions were issued for compliance with the Supreme Court's CCTV directions and preservation of CCTV-related evidence.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to maintainability failed, the investigative stay and fixed-time prayer were rejected, and only limited ancillary directions were granted to ensure fair conduct of the ongoing SFIO investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Article 226(2) is satisfied by a part of the cause of action within jurisdiction, constructive res judicata will not bar a later writ merely because similar issues were raised elsewhere unless the earlier proceeding involved the same parties, the same reliefs, and a matter finally decided; moreover, absent a statutory outer limit, a court cannot fix a completion deadline for an SFIO investigation under section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013.

---