2010 (6) TMI 321 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order rejecting the application for summoning a witness in respect of audit carried out by SEBI.
2. Alleged violation of SEBI directions leading to a complaint under SEBI Act.
3. Failure to comply with SEBI directions resulting in a complaint against the revisionist and others.
4. Belated application to summon auditor for cross-examination.
5. Contention of delay in proceedings by the revisionist.
6. Adequate opportunities provided to the revisionist for leading evidence.
7. Lack of satisfactory reasons for not summoning the auditor earlier.
8. Dismissal of application for summoning the auditor upheld due to belated nature.
9. Absence of disclosed reasons for not summoning the auditor earlier.
10. Dismissal of revision petition due to lack of merit.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a challenge to an order rejecting an application to summon a witness regarding an audit conducted by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The revisionist sought to summon the auditor for cross-examination, which was contested by the respondent as belated and aimed at delaying the proceedings.

2. The complaint under SEBI Act was filed against the revisionist and another for alleged violation of SEBI directions related to refunding money collected under a Collective Investment Scheme. This led to the complaint against the revisionist and other directors for failure to comply with SEBI's directions.

3. The trial court recorded evidence and exhibited the audit report along with other documents. The revisionist's belated application to summon the auditor was deemed unnecessary as sufficient opportunities were provided earlier for presenting evidence.

4. The court noted that the revisionist failed to provide satisfactory reasons for not summoning the auditor earlier, especially when the report was exhibited on a specific date. The delay in taking steps to summon the auditor was a crucial factor in the decision to dismiss the application.

5. Despite arguments by the revisionist's counsel, the court upheld the dismissal of the application, emphasizing that the revisionist had multiple opportunities to summon the auditor but failed to do so in a timely manner. The belated nature of the application was a key reason for the decision.

6. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it, stating that there was no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the lower court's decision to reject the application. The lack of disclosed reasons for the delay in summoning the auditor further supported the dismissal of the revision petition.