Item No. 2 17.09.2026 Court. No. 12 Sandip MAT 604 of 2026 With CAN 3 of 2026 Soumen Pramanik VS Tushar Kanti Dutta & Ors. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, Mr. Amal Kumar Saha, Mr. Iresh Paul … for the Appellant. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Megha Sarkar … for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Mr. Sourav Guchhait … for the private Respondent No. 3. Mr. Prasanta Kr. Dutt, Mr. Susanta Kumar Dutt, Mr. Syamntak Banerjee …for the SEBI (Respondent No. 2). 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated December 23, 2025 passed in W.P.A. 11919 of 2025. 2. By the order impugned, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, inter alia, requesting the One Man Committee, constituted by the Hon’ble High Court to liquidate the assets of those companies involved in ponzi schemes, to condone the delay on the part of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 in paying 25% of the bid amount. 3. According to His Lordship, the writ petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of the properties identified as TW - 4 and TW – 5. His Lordship was of the further view that as per the terms and conditions, there was no provision to allow the bid of the second highest bidder, if the highest bidder was not in a position to comply with the terms and conditions of the e-auction. This order has been challenged by the appellant who claims to be the second highest bidder. We find that, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the appellant, the One Man Committee directed re-auction. The said direction was passed on March 28, 2025. Although the One Man Committee upheld the procedure of e-auction, but he came to a specific conclusion that the highest bidder in respect of TW-4 and TW-5 did not comply with the terms and conditions within the time stipulated. 4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned finding and direction for re-auction, a writ petition has been filed by the appellant before the Division Bench specially constituted for the purpose of hearing matters relating to ponzi schemes and the applications connected thereto. 5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the appellant submits that not only was the appellant a necessary party in the writ petition, but the order of the learned single Judge was passed in ignorance of the decision of the One Man Committee to hold a re-auction. 6. Had such order been placed before His Lordship, His Lordship would not have interfered and granted the relief. 7. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 submits that the order of the One Man Committee dated April 28, 2025 was passed in the absence of the writ petitioner/highest bidder. As the writ petitioner/highest bidder was not in the knowledge of the said order, the same could not be brought to the knowledge of the learned single Judge. 2 8. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that the auction process was held by SEBI, at the direction of the One Man Committee. The Bench constituted for hearing Ponzi matters did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the auction process. 9. Mr. Karmakar, learned advocate for the company, whose assets are being auctioned, submits that the company has a right to ensure that the maximum amount of money is fetched by way of e-auction. 10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that, a person claiming to be the second highest bidder had already approached the One Man Committee and an order was passed against the said person, that is, instead of allotting the property to the second highest bidder on account of failure of the highest bidder to comply with the terms and conditions, the re- auction was directed. This decision is under challenge by the second highest bidder by filing a writ petition before the Bench constituted by the High Court to hear matters relating to Ponzi schemes and all connected applications. This aspect was also not before the learned single Judge at the time of passing of the order impugned. The order of His Lordship was passed on the understanding that there was no existence of a second highest bidder and the terms and conditions did not provide any right being vested on the second highest bidder. 11. In our opinion, the fact that a writ petition was pending at the instance of the second highest bidder before the Bench constituted to hear the Ponzi matters is an important issue 3 which should have been brought to the knowledge of His Lordship. 12. Under such circumstances, the order impugned is set aside. The appellant shall be added as a respondent to the said writ petition. Whether the added respondent/appellant would have any locus to oppose the prayers in the writ petition, will be decided by His Lordship. The facts and circumstances and the impact of the order of the One Man Committee dated April 28, 2025, will be considered. All points are left open to be decided by His Lordship including whether the learned single Judge should entertain the matter in view of the determination of a Bench taking up Ponzi matters. 13. The writ petition is remanded for de novo hearing. As the order of re-auction has already been passed by the One Man Committee, we request the learned single Judge to hear out the matter expeditiously. Liberty is granted to the parties to mention the matter for early disposal. 14. As the appellant’s grievance is in respect of TW-4, we request His Lordship to restrict the consideration in respect of TW-4. 15. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of, upon setting aside the order impugned in respect of TW4. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 4