Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary

Held

The Court, while hearing the counsel for the respondent (State), directed the respondent authority to take necessary steps to comply with the order dated April 15, 2026, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 30 days from the receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petition was disposed of with this direction. The Court did not specifically address the prayer for the refund of GST or the provision of police force beyond directing compliance with the prior order. The issue of whether the State was obligated to provide police force upon payment of fees and GST, or the legality of the GST charged, was not decided on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Capri Global Capital Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 to take possession of secured assets from borrowers, in compliance with an order dated April 15, 2026, passed by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner also sought a direction for Respondent No. 4, SP Rajgarh, to provide police force for which a fee of Rs. 13,790 and GST of Rs. 2,484 were paid. The petition was filed seeking expeditious compliance with the prior order and assistance for asset recovery. The counsel for the petitioner was absent, but the counsel for the State was heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 to take possession of secured assets from borrowers in compliance with the order dated April 15, 2026, and the relevant Act, and directing Respondent No. 4 to provide police force for the same, as per the petitioner's prayers. Contentions: Petitioner (implied by prayers): The petitioner sought the Court's intervention to ensure compliance with a prior judicial order and to facilitate the recovery of secured assets, including the provision of necessary police assistance. The petitioner also sought the refund of GST paid for the police force, implicitly arguing for its necessity and the State's obligation to provide it upon payment. Revenue/State: The State's counsel was heard. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the State regarding the merits of the petitioner's prayers or any counter-arguments. The State's counsel's appearance and hearing suggest their engagement with the Court's proceedings.