The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to interfere with the two interim orders passed by the Calcutta High Court concerning the freezing of Bank accounts of the TMC by the investigating authorities in connection with allegations of financial irregularities and proceeds of crime, holding that the High Court had passed a “balanced order.”

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale was hearing two separate petitions arising from the Calcutta High Court’s interim orders concerning three HDFC Bank accounts of the TMC. The TMC challenged the High Court’s July 20 order refusing to permit it to operate the three accounts. Separately, Biswanath Das, a rebel TMC MLA, challenged the July 9 order, which had allowed limited operation of the accounts for day-to-day expenses under the supervision of the Court-appointed Special Officer. He contended that he represented the real TMC and opposing the arrangement that permitted the rival side to operate the accounts.

Senior AdvocateKapil Sibal, appearing for the AITC, submitted that several of the party’s accounts had been frozen despite the alleged proceeds of crime being around ?60 crore. He submitted that the party had around 36 accounts, including five bank accounts and 31 fixed deposits, and that freezing the accounts had made it difficult for the party to meet its regular financial obligations.

He submitted that the party employs approximately 250 persons, with salary liabilities of around ?53.23 lakh per month, besides payments towards agencies providing office and security personnel. He further submitted that the party operates 17 offices, incurring around ?1 crore in monthly expenditure, apart from outstanding dues to vendors engaged in election-related activities.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the State, submitted that the High Court’s concern had been to ensure that the party could continue meeting its day-to-day expenditure. He said that three accounts were available for such operations pursuant to the July 9 order. He submitted that the accounts with Indian Bank were free from ED encumbrance and that approximately ?125 crore was available. He also submitted that two accounts did not have any encumbrance from the local police.

Senior AdvocateK. Parameshwar, appearing for complainant MLA Biswanath Das, thereafter opposed the arrangement. He submitted that two of the accounts were unencumbered and argued that the dispute also involved the question of which faction represents the AITC, an issue pending before the Election Commission.

Mr Parameshwar also questioned payments to an airline company whose account had allegedly been attached and submitted that three accounts had been frozen by the State Government. He alleged that ?360 crore had entered one of the accounts within 20 days of the election having been lost, and urged the Court to examine the funds available in the various accounts.

The Court, however, noted that both the orders under challenge were interim in nature. Finding that the High Court’s July 9 arrangement adequately addressed this concern by permitting limited operation of the accounts for day-to-day expenditure, the Court held that there was no occasion to interfere at this stage. It accordingly left the matter to the discretion of the Special Officer, former High Court Judge Justice Subrata Talukdar, and granted Biswanath Das liberty to raise his objections before him.