New Delhi, Feb 18: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it has been “terrorised” in West Bengal, as the apex court adjourned hearing on its plea accusing the state government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of interfering in recent search operations at the office of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain in Kolkata.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the federal anti-money laundering agency, strongly refuted the submission that the ED had “weaponised” its powers.

The remarks came after senior advocate Siddharth Luthra contended that the ED must justify the “weaponisation” of its authority.

“It (ED) has not been weaponised, it has been terrorised,” ASG Raju said.

After Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Centre’s second-highest law officer, stated that the ED is likely to file its rejoinder during the day, a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan posted the matter for further hearing on March 18.

The hearing was adjourned last week following a request made due to the ill health of senior advocate Kapil Sibal.

During the brief hearing, SG Mehta, representing the ED, informed the apex court that he had been apprised about Sibal’s inability to appear.

“I can’t oppose on this ground. If it can be kept on 18th February,” the Centre’s second-highest law officer submitted.

Acceding to the request, the Justice Mishra-led Bench had deferred the matter for further hearing on February 18.

The ED has approached the top court seeking directions to register FIRs against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, the state Director General of Police (DGP), and the Kolkata Police Commissioner, alleging obstruction of lawful duties during the federal agency’s simultaneous search operations.

In her counter-affidavit, Chief Minister Banerjee has denied all allegations of interference and obstruction, asserting that her limited presence on the premises was solely to retrieve confidential and proprietary data belonging to her Trinamool Congress (AITC).

According to the affidavit, CM Banerjee visited Pratik Jain’s residence at Loudon Street and I-PAC’s office in Bidhannagar on January 8, 2026, after receiving information that sensitive political data of the Trinamool was being accessed during the searches. She maintained that the data was “vitally linked to the AITC’s strategy for the upcoming Legislative Assembly election”.

The affidavit stated that when she reached the premises, she “politely requested the officials of the Enforcement Directorate to be allowed to retrieve the Party’s data and the devices they were stored in and files containing prints of the same”.

It further claimed that “the officers of the Enforcement Directorate present thereat did not object to this request and permitted her to retrieve some of these devices and physical files”.

“After she had done so, the Answering Respondent (CM Banerjee) left the premises so as not to inconvenience the officials of the Enforcement Directorate in any way,” the counter affidavit said, adding that the ED’s own panchnamas record that the searches continued thereafter and were conducted “peacefully and in an orderly manner”.

CM Banerjee has also argued that neither the Trinamool nor its officials are accused in the alleged coal scam, and therefore, the ED cannot claim any right to the party’s proprietary data.

The counter affidavit has further accused the ED of acting with mala fide intent, alleging that the searches were carried out in the run-up to the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections and after a prolonged period of inaction.

It has questioned the timing of the operations, claiming they coincided with I-PAC possessing “critical documents”, including a proposed list of candidates for the upcoming polls.

Alleging violations of statutory safeguards under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the affidavit also states that the ED failed to produce any audio or video recordings of the searches. This, it claimed, raises a “strong presumption” that the searches were clandestine and aimed at accessing confidential political data.

Earlier, on January 15, the Supreme Court had stayed the FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials in connection with the searches, and had also directed the preservation of CCTV footage and other digital storage devices containing recordings of the searched premises and the surrounding areas.

Mumbai: A Bandra-based businesswoman has alleged that she was cheated of ₹65.40 lakh in a fraudulent chemical supply deal involving an Ahmedabad-based intermediary and a Vadodara firm. An FIR has been registered against Damnik Rathod, Arvind Ahuja, Hasmukhbhai Shah and Sachin Rajeshirke at the LT Marg Police Station.

The complainant, Nita Abhinav Upadhyay (43), a resident of Bandra (West), is a partner in A.N.N. Finechem LLP, a firm registered in 2024 with the Registrar of Companies (RoC).

The firm deals in the purchase and sale of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), sourcing chemicals from various Indian companies and supplying them to other firms through agents on a 30–90 day payment cycle.

According to the complaint, in July 2025, Punit Prajapati from Ahmedabad contacted Upadhyay regarding the availability of the chemical Pregabalin on behalf of one Dr Manik Rathod. Subsequently, Rathod directly contacted her and placed an order for 3 tonnes of Pregabalin worth ₹95.40 lakh, agreeing to pay 50% advance and the balance within 30 days of delivery.

On July 30, 2025, a purchase order was received from Agaman Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Vadodara, but since the agreed advance payment was not received, the goods were not dispatched.

Later, Rathod informed Upadhyay that due to his company’s bank account being frozen, the payment would instead be made by another firm, Alakhat Business Solutions Pvt Ltd, Vadodara. Initially, Upadhyay refused, citing irregularity in receiving payment from a different company than the one issuing the purchase order. Rathod then cancelled the earlier order and facilitated direct dealings with Alakhat Business Solutions Pvt Ltd.

On August 18, 2025, Alakhat Business Solutions Pvt Ltd placed an order for 1 tonne of Pregabalin worth ₹31.80 lakh, agreeing to pay 50% advance and the remaining amount via post-dated cheque (PDC) within 15 days.

An advance of ₹15.90 lakh was credited via RTGS to A.N.N. Finechem LLP’s HDFC Bank account on August 19, 2025. Trusting the transaction, the complainant procured the material from SBD Healthcare, Bharuch, and handed over the consignment to the company’s vehicle.

Subsequently, further RTGS payments of ₹15.90 lakh each were made on September 1, 8 and 12, 2025, along with ₹30 lakh on September 16, 2025, against additional orders.

Each time, Upadhyay purchased the required material from suppliers including SBD Healthcare (Bharuch), GGC Vadodara and Apex Pharma (Bharuch), making full payments before dispatching the goods.

However, when the first post-dated cheque dated September 21, 2025, was deposited, it was returned with the remark “Account Closed and Insufficient Balance.” Upon confronting Arvind Ahuja, identified as the manager of Alakhat Business Solutions Pvt Ltd, she was repeatedly assured that payment issues were being resolved. Bank officials reportedly informed her that attempts to contact the company’s director, Hasmukhbhai Natwarbhai Shah, were unsuccessful.

Further inquiries revealed that another director, Sachin Rajeshirke, was unavailable due to a family bereavement. Despite repeated follow-ups through calls and emails, no payments were made. When Upadhyay verified the company’s addresses in Vadodara and Roorkee, she allegedly found that no such operational offices existed.

On October 13, 2025, the company emailed stating that payment was delayed due to a “government audit” and technical issues, promising clearance after Diwali. However, no payment was received thereafter.

In October 2025, Upadhyay met Dr Manik Rathod in Vadodara to seek clarification. Rathod allegedly denied responsibility. Later, in January 2026, she received a message through Prajapati that if she paid ₹5 lakh, Rathod would provide updated contact details and the new office address of Alakhat Business Solutions Pvt Ltd.

The complainant stated that this strengthened her suspicion that Rathod, along with Arvind Ahuja and directors Hasmukhbhai Shah and Sachin Rajeshirke, had conspired to cheat her firm.

According to the complaint, goods worth ₹1.59 crore were supplied to the accused company. While ₹93.60 lakh was received through RTGS, the remaining ₹65.40 lakh remains unpaid.

Alleging criminal conspiracy and cheating, Upadhyay has filed a complaint against the accused. Based on her statement, an FIR has been registered at the LT Marg Police Station, and further investigation is underway.

Vasai: In a shocking incident, a 15-year-old boy, along with a minor friend, allegedly murdered his 65-year-old aunt in Vasai after she scolded him. The Manikpur police have apprehended both minors in connection with the crime.

The deceased, identified as Durga Bansode, resided alone in the Bhimai Bungalow in Barhampur village, Vasai (West). While her married daughter lives in Boisar and her son resides in Waliv, Bansode managed the household on her own. Her body was discovered inside the bungalow on Monday morning.

During the investigation, Manikpur police discovered that Bansode’s 15-year-old nephew frequently visited her. Upon being questioned, the teenager confessed to the murder.

On Sunday, the nephew visited his aunt as usual. An argument broke out over a trivial matter, and Bansode scolded him.

Enraged by the scolding, the boy called a friend over. While his aunt was caught off guard, the nephew struck her on the back of the head with a bamboo stick, killing her instantly.

The two minors reportedly tried to hide the body inside a bed storage compartment but failed. They subsequently fled the scene.

The police revealed that the nephew is a school dropout. This was not his first run in with his aunt; three months prior, he had allegedly committed a theft at her residence. Following that incident, Durga Bansode had moved all her jewelry to a bank locker for safety.