2015 (8) TMI 1502 - HC - SEBI

Appropriate final orders after considering the reply given already - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order impugned would show that it is prima facie in nature. The enquiry is almost completed except filing written submissions. In a matter of this nature, touching upon Revenue and technical aspects involving economy, this Court is expected to adopt a dignified reluctance to leave the issues open to be decided by the statutory authority. Thus without going into the merits of the Case, this Court directs the first respondent to pass appropriate final orders after considering the reply given already and to be given in the form of written submission within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to give the written submissions to the first respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Writ petition stands disposed of by directing the first respondent to pass final order on merits after considering the relevant materials.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the respondents to pass the impugned order.
2. Nature of business activities conducted by the petitioner.
3. Compliance with SEBI regulations and directives.
4. Prima facie observations and pending written submissions.

Jurisdiction of the Respondents:
The petitioner argued that their business activities were solely in real estate and that past complaints were false, questioning the jurisdiction of the respondents to issue the impugned order. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the order was based on passive observations, with the petitioner voluntarily subjecting itself to the jurisdiction by providing explanations. The court directed the first respondent to pass final orders after considering the replies and written submissions within a specified time frame, while also addressing the jurisdictional aspect raised by the petitioner.

Nature of Business Activities:
The petitioner asserted that their operations were limited to real estate dealings without any other activities. The respondents, however, highlighted multiple complaints involving substantial amounts, necessitating further investigation. The court refrained from delving into the merits of the case, emphasizing the need for the statutory authority to make final determinations on the matter. The court instructed the first respondent to issue conclusive orders after evaluating all relevant materials, including the petitioner's submissions and addressing the jurisdictional concerns raised.

Compliance with SEBI Regulations:
The impugned order issued directives under various sections of the SEBI Act, instructing the petitioner not to collect fresh funds, launch new schemes, or dispose of assets obtained through raised funds. Additionally, the order demanded the submission of detailed information within a specified timeframe, including audited accounts and investor details. The court emphasized the immediate effect of these directions until further notice, allowing SEBI to take additional actions as deemed necessary within the legal framework.

Prima Facie Observations and Pending Submissions:
The court noted that the impugned order was prima facie in nature, with the investigation almost concluded pending written submissions. Despite the technical and financial complexities involved, the court directed the first respondent to issue final orders after considering all responses within a stipulated period. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit written submissions promptly, ensuring a comprehensive review of the case before final decisions were made.