9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Sealing of business premises without authority of law; Violation of SEBI Act and RBI Act; Lack of notice before sealing; Compliance with statutory provisions; Fundamental right to carry on business; Protection of investors' interests; Inquiry by statutory authorities; Conditions for unsealing of premises; Inventory preparation; Cooperation in inquiry; Restriction on new business activities; Escrow account for deposits; Non-alienation of assets; Recourse to legal action; FIR lodged against companies; Non-interference in criminal proceedings. Analysis: The High Court addressed multiple issues in this judgment. Initially, the petitioners alleged that the sealing of their business premises by District Authorities in Jharkhand was unauthorized and lacked prior notice. The Respondents-State argued that the petitioners were accepting deposits without complying with SEBI and RBI regulations, leading to criminal cases against some companies and directors. The Court emphasized the need to involve statutory authorities responsible for regulating such companies to ensure compliance with relevant laws and protect investors' interests. The Court ordered the unsealing of business premises under specific conditions. The Registrar of Companies was directed to prepare an inventory of all documents within two weeks, with the help of District Administration, to be kept in safe custody. The statutory authorities, including SEBI, RBI, and others, were instructed to conduct inquiries into the companies' affairs within eight weeks, with petitioners' cooperation. During this period, petitioners were prohibited from engaging in new business activities, advertising, or withdrawing existing accounts without clearance. Furthermore, the judgment outlined restrictions on asset alienation, deposit handling, and operation of accounts during the inquiry. The Court allowed statutory authorities to take legal action if violations were found, and petitioners could seek redress if aggrieved. The judgment clarified that it did not interfere with criminal proceedings against the companies, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures in such cases. The Court directed the petitioners to file regular compliance reports, pay expenses incurred during the process, and obtain necessary documents for the inquiry. Any violation of the Court's directions would be reported to the Court and appropriate action taken. The judgment highlighted the need for transparency and public notice of the Court's directives to ensure accountability and protection of investors' interests. The case was scheduled for further proceedings on a specified date, with copies of the order provided to relevant parties for compliance.
|
