9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 891 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHIExtract: ....... discretionary jurisdiction in the present cases. The petitioners are directed to appear and cooperate before the S.E.B.I in respect of any proceedings which are to be undertaken by the SEBI under the Act of 1992 in compliance of the final orders passed by the SEBI earlier. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Issues involved: Sealing of business premises by State Authorities, challenge to SEBI order, jurisdiction of SEBI, protection of investors' interests.
Sealing of Business Premises: Three writ petitions filed by a company operating in different districts challenging the sealing of their business premises by State Authorities. Petitioners argue that the action is without legal authority and seek to have their premises unsealed. SEBI had directed the company to wind up operations and return investors' money within 3 months, which has not been done. Petitioners claim that the final SEBI order is under challenge in Kolkata High Court. Challenge to SEBI Order: SEBI, through its counsel, asserts that the petitioners have not complied with the final orders to wind up operations and return investors' money. SEBI maintains that it has the authority under the Act of 1992 to take necessary steps for refunding investors' money and can pursue legal recourses against non-compliant companies like the petitioners. Jurisdiction of SEBI: SEBI argues that the petitioners should be under its jurisdiction and subject to its actions as per the Act of 1992. SEBI is entitled to take steps available in law to protect investors' money and ensure compliance with its directives. The court is inclined to dismiss the writ petitions and directs the petitioners to cooperate with SEBI in any proceedings related to the SEBI's orders. Protection of Investors' Interests: State Authorities maintain that the actions taken were to safeguard the interests of investors who were allegedly duped by the petitioners. An FIR has been registered against the petitioners for continuing business despite SEBI orders. The State submits that the petitioners should be under SEBI's jurisdiction for necessary actions to protect investors' money and enforce compliance with SEBI directives. SEBI may allow the return of investors' money by permitting the petitioners to reopen their business premises or take other lawful steps. Conclusion: The court dismisses the writ petition, directing the petitioners to cooperate with SEBI in compliance with its orders. The decision is based on the petitioners' failure to return investors' money and the need for SEBI to take appropriate actions under the Act of 1992.
|
