Supreme Court - Investor Protection and Securities Law

Supreme Court Petition over Million Miles Investor Claims: W.P.(C) No. 67 of 2020

Petition reported as filed on 17 January 2020

Important legal note: The monetary amounts, number of investors, lack of regulatory approval, diversion of funds and other wrongdoing described below were allegations made by the petitioners. They should not be read as judicial findings unless supported by a final order or other authoritative determination.

What was filed in the Supreme Court?

According to the petition described on this page, Chhattisgarh Abhikarta Avm Niveshak Sangh filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 67 of 2020 in the Supreme Court of India concerning money allegedly collected from investors by Million Miles Infrastructure & Developers Limited through schemes said to operate across several States.

The petition was stated to have been filed through Advocate Omanakuttan K. K. and Advocate-on-Record Krishna Kumar Singh. It sought directions for investigation, identification of investor losses, preservation and sale of assets, and refund of money to investors.

Core allegations made in the petition

The petitioners alleged that the company had collected more than Rs. 101 crore from approximately 1.50 lakh persons through investment arrangements promoted in several States, including Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Arunachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh/Telangana, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar.

They further alleged that the arrangements were presented as land-linked or investment schemes, that commission agents were engaged to mobilise investors, and that the company later closed offices in different parts of India.

Schemes described by the petitioners

The original petition-related article referred to one-time investment plans, instalment-based plans, land-unit or infrastructure bond-type plans, recurring contribution arrangements and monthly return plans. It also stated that investors were issued documents describing land or units said to correspond with their contributions.

These descriptions are retained as part of the factual case history, but they remain allegations from the petition materials rather than findings of this article.

Article 32 of the Constitution: Supreme Court writ jurisdiction

Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court may issue appropriate directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.

A writ petition seeking investigation or regulatory action must therefore establish a legally sustainable basis for invoking the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction. Article 32 is not a general substitute for every statutory, civil or criminal remedy.

What is a writ of mandamus?

Mandamus is a public-law remedy used to compel a public authority to perform a legal duty where the conditions for such relief are satisfied. In investor-protection litigation, a petitioner may seek directions against statutory regulators or investigating authorities, but the Court examines maintainability, statutory remedies, factual disputes and the nature of the duty sought to be enforced.

Section 11AA of the SEBI Act, 1992: collective investment scheme

Section 11AA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 sets out the statutory concept of a collective investment scheme. Broadly, an arrangement may fall within the provision where contributions or payments from investors are pooled and utilised for the purposes of a scheme, the investors expect profits, income, produce or property from the arrangement, the contributions or property are managed on behalf of the investors, and investors do not exercise day-to-day control over management of the scheme, subject to statutory exclusions.

Why Section 11AA matters: Whether a particular land, infrastructure, deposit-like or return-linked arrangement is a collective investment scheme depends on its real structure and statutory ingredients, not merely the label used in brochures or investor documents.

SEBI Collective Investment Scheme Regulations, 1999

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations, 1999 govern registration and regulation of collective investment schemes. The Regulations remain current and were last amended on 5 December 2025.

SEBI - Collective Investment Scheme Regulations, 1999, as amended through 5 December 2025

SEBI's regulatory role

SEBI is the statutory securities-market regulator. In relation to collective investment schemes, its powers arise from the SEBI Act, 1992, the Collective Investment Scheme Regulations, 1999 and other applicable securities laws. Depending on the facts, SEBI may investigate, issue directions, commence adjudicatory or enforcement proceedings, and take measures authorised by statute.

Reliefs sought in the 2020 petition

A direction to SEBI or another competent body to investigate the allegations and quantify investor losses.
Directions concerning identification, preservation, takeover or sale of assets for refund to investors, subject to law.
A court-monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the allegations.
Interim restraint against disposal of properties said to belong to the company or related persons.
Protection sought for investor-agents from criminal complaints, as stated in the petition.

Later Chhattisgarh High Court proceeding

A later proceeding involving the same association was decided by the Chhattisgarh High Court on 27 June 2023 in WPCR No. 341 of 2021. In that case, the association again sought investigation and recovery-related directions concerning alleged investor losses. The High Court declined interference under Article 226 after noting that members of the association were also facing criminal prosecution in connection with the alleged transactions.

This later proceeding is relevant background, but it should not be treated as a judicial determination of every allegation made in the 2020 Supreme Court petition.

Current company-status context

Public company databases currently report Million Miles Infrastructure & Developers Limited as a struck-off company. Company-status information can change and should be verified directly from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal before being relied upon in legal proceedings.

Key legal takeaways

Serious allegations in a petition should be reported as allegations unless and until adjudicated.
Article 32 is a constitutional remedy for enforcement of fundamental rights, not a general forum for every private financial dispute.
Section 11AA of the SEBI Act focuses on the substance of pooled investment arrangements.
The SEBI Collective Investment Scheme Regulations, 1999 remain in force and were amended in December 2025.
Investor recovery, asset attachment, investigation and prosecution may involve multiple statutory authorities and separate legal proceedings.
Current company status and regulatory orders should be checked from official sources before filing or publishing factual assertions.

Official legal resources

SEBI - Collective Investment Scheme Regulations, 1999

SEBI - Current Regulations

Supreme Court of India - Jurisdiction

This article reports the filing history and allegations described in the petition-related material and explains the current legal framework. It does not state that any person or company committed fraud unless supported by a final judicial or regulatory finding.