9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1590 - HC - Companies LawAttachment of properties of petitioners - Invocation of section 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - HELD THAT - It is evident that impugned notices have been issued by the authorities in view of provisions of the MPID Act promulgated by State of Maharashtra for curbing the unscrupulous activities of Financial Establishments in the State. The Act provides for attachment of properties of Financial Establishments to ensure return of the deposits made by the public. It appears that authorities in Union Territory, Chandigarh and States of Punjab and Haryana have merely acted on the basis of communications/notices received from the appropriate authority in State of Maharashtra. Investigation pursuant to FIR No. 216 dated 30.09.2013 registered at police station MRA Manj, District Mumbai and sections 3 4 of the MPID Act appears to be pending at Mumbai. No ground is thus, made out for entertaining these petitions by this court. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the court to entertain petitions challenging property attachment under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999. Analysis: The judgment by the Hon'ble Justice Rajan Gupta of Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with a group of petitions challenging property attachment orders under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999. The main issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the court to entertain these petitions. The petitions stemmed from disputes related to trading activities on the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) web portal. A complaint was lodged, leading to the registration of an FIR against the directors and key management personnel of NSEL. Subsequently, sections 3 & 4 of the MPID Act were added to the FIR. The State of Maharashtra issued notices directing authorities in Chandigarh and Haryana not to create third-party interests in the properties listed without permission from the MPID court. The petitioners challenged these notices, arguing that they were not financial establishments under the Act and had not accepted any deposits directly from the complainant. During the proceedings, the State of Maharashtra contended that the notices were issued based on a notification under the Act and suggested that the petitioners could approach the competent court in Mumbai for redressal. The court referred to a similar case in Gujarat where the plea was rejected and highlighted that the High Court of Bombay would be the appropriate forum for such matters. The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the Gujarat High Court's decision, emphasizing that the concerned court should decide the case on its own merits. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana concluded that the impugned notices were issued in accordance with the MPID Act to prevent unscrupulous activities by financial establishments in Maharashtra. Since the investigation related to the FIR and the MPID Act was ongoing in Mumbai, the court found no grounds to entertain the petitions. It noted that the High Court of Gujarat had taken a similar view, and as the Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition, there was no merit in the petitions before it. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions. In summary, the judgment underscored the importance of jurisdiction in matters related to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, and highlighted the need for approaching the appropriate forum for legal remedies. The court's decision was guided by the ongoing investigation in Mumbai and the dismissal of a similar petition by the Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of the petitions challenging the property attachment orders.
|
