The Bombay High Court on 26 October set aside a trial court order taking cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate’s prosecution complaint against OctaFX India Private Limited, now known as Tauga Private Limited, and quashed consequential steps, including a Red Corner Notice and a non-bailable warrant against the company in the case.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav, allowing the company’s writ petition on October 26, held that the cognisance order dated December 24, 2024 was not sustainable because the statutory procedure had not been followed. The case is among the more closely watched enforcement actions involving an offshore retail trading platform in the Indian market.
The Court observed that where statutory procedure must be followed scrupulously, an order taking cognisance can be passed only after the prosecution’s reply has been considered and the accused has been heard. Finding that the December 2024 order had not met that requirement, the Court quashed and set it aside.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda appeared for the petitioner, instructed by Khaitan & Co. Advocate Ashish Mehta appeared for the Directorate of Enforcement.
The company has been directed to appear before the trial court through counsel on November 18, 2026. The trial court must hear the objections of the petitioner and the other co-accused under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and only then decide whether to take cognisance.
The ED sought a direction that the hearing be completed within eight weeks. The Court declined to fix a timeline, leaving the schedule to the trial court’s discretion given its workload.
Fresh service of summons and notice under Section 223(1) of the BNSS was waived for the petitioner. The prosecution was directed to ensure the other accused are served in accordance with law.
With the cognisance order set aside, the Court directed that any consequential steps taken by the prosecution towards issuing a Red Corner Notice or a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in this case are also quashed. The relief is limited to the petitioner and to this case.
The order does not go into the merits of the ED’s allegations. The trial court must first hear objections in accordance with law and then decide whether to take cognisance afresh.
The High Court allowed and disposed of the writ petition.
(With inputs from agencies)
