2022 (4) TMI 1577 - HC - SEBI

Appellant seeks leave of the court to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach this court or any Meera Jadhav forum as advised, if petitioners are not satisfied with the orders to be passed by SEBI in the settlement applications filed by some of the respondents or in the show cause notices issued to some of the respondents before us . Respondents states that show cause notices have been issued to 62 entities and considering the situation that we have just come out of Covid-19, an attempt will certainly be made to dispose the proceedings at the earliest. Mr. Andhyarujina appearing for respondent no.4 states that proceedings before SEBI pertaining to respondent nos.3 and 4 are going on and it is not like what petitioners have stated that there is no progress. We are not going into this aspect but considering the over all situation, we would expect the SEBI, i.e., respondent no.1 to complete the proceedings pending before them which have been agitated in this petition, as early as possible within 6 months. Liberty to apply for extension. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matters pending before the SEBI.

Summary

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of petition with liberty to approach the court or any other forum.
2. Progress of proceedings before SEBI and expectations for timely disposal.
3. Rights and contentions of the parties kept open.
4. No observations made on the merits of matters pending before SEBI.

Analysis:

1. The petition was being heard, and the appellant sought permission to withdraw the petition with the liberty to approach the court or any other forum if dissatisfied with the orders passed by SEBI in settlement applications or show cause notices. The respondent mentioned that show cause notices had been issued to 62 entities, and efforts would be made to expedite the proceedings post the Covid-19 situation. The respondent representing one of the parties involved in the proceedings clarified that the SEBI proceedings concerning certain respondents were ongoing, contrary to the petitioner's claim of no progress. Despite not delving into the specifics, the court emphasized the importance of SEBI concluding the pending proceedings related to the petition within six months, with the provision to seek an extension if necessary.

2. The court decided to keep all rights and contentions of the parties open, explicitly stating that no observations had been made on the merits of the matters under consideration by SEBI. This decision ensured that the parties retained the flexibility to present their arguments and evidence before SEBI without any prejudgment from the court. By maintaining neutrality on the merits, the court upheld the principle of fair and unbiased adjudication in the SEBI proceedings.

3. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted as requested. The court's decision to dismiss the petition with the provided liberty signified the acceptance of the appellant's request to withdraw while preserving the option to revisit the judicial process if needed. This conclusion marked the formal end of the petition in the court, with the appellant retaining the right to seek judicial intervention in the future based on the developments in the SEBI proceedings or any other relevant circumstances.

4. Notably, the judgment refrained from making any comments or assessments regarding the merits of the issues being considered by SEBI. By refraining from expressing any opinions on the substance of the matters before SEBI, the court maintained a position of impartiality and avoided influencing the ongoing regulatory proceedings. This approach underscored the court's commitment to upholding the integrity and independence of SEBI's decision-making process, ensuring that the parties involved would receive fair and unbiased treatment in their regulatory matters.