NAVEEN AGGARWAL vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Advocate - Satya Pal Jain (Sr. Adv.) — CWP/4113/2022

Case under Constitution of India Section 1. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 03-Mar-2022

CNR: PHHC010198932022

Filing Number

CWP/7792/2022

Filing Date

24-Feb-2022

Registration No

CWP/4113/2022

Registration Date

02-Mar-2022

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

38.1 - QUASHING PETITIONS I/O ( 152 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NAVEEN AGGARWAL

    Adv. Amandeep Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Advocate - Satya Pal Jain (Sr. Adv.)

  2. 2.SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    Case Summary: Naveen Aggarwal v. Union of India (CWP 4113/2022) The Punjab & Haryana High Court partly allowed a petition by Naveen Aggarwal, a chartered accountant, challenging his prosecution in an SFIO fraud investigation involving the SRS Group companies. The court directed authorities to provide the sanction order copy but upheld the summoning order and sanction, finding the investigation initiated in August 2018 (before Companies Act 2013 repealed the 1956 Act) remained valid under savings provisions. The defects claimed—prosecution under repealed 1956 Act provisions and limitation bar—were rejected as the pending investigation was protected under statutory savings clauses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Mar-2022

    Other

  4. 24-Feb-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/4113/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Naveen Aggarwal v. Union of India (CWP 4113/2022) The Punjab & Haryana High Court partly allowed a petition by Naveen Aggarwal, a chartered accountant, challenging his prosecution in an SFIO fraud investigation involving the SRS Group companies. The court directed authorities to provide the sanction order copy but upheld the summoning order and sanction, finding the investigation initiated in August 2018 (before Companies Act 2013 repealed the 1956 Act) remained valid under savings provisions. The defects claimed—prosecution under repealed 1956 Act provisions and limitation bar—were rejected as the pending investigation was protected under statutory savings clauses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case