Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (1) TMI 207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e filed a suit for permanent injunction on December 23, 1993. With the said suit an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, was filed seeking ad interim injunction thereby restraining the petitioner from floating its public issue of 30 crores units of Rs. 10 per unit on January 6, 1994. The main grievance of the respondents as per the plaint can be summarised thus, namely, that the public issue has been floated without the permission of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter called the "SEBI") and further that the units being offered for public subscription have not been approved or disapproved by the SEBI and that the SEBI has neither certified on the accuracy nor on ade .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etitioner from floating the public issue of 30 crores units of Rs. 10 per unit on the stipulated date, i.e., January 6, 1994. Aggrieved by this order of interim injunction the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner by the present petition has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned subordinate court has not exercised the. jurisdiction properly. He having restrained the petitioner from floating the public issue on January 6, 1994, ought not to have adjourned the case to January 14, 1994. This tantamounts to decreeing the suit. Even otherwise, no reason has been assigned for granting the ex parte ad interim order. The learned trial court has not e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on causing grave miscarriage of justice. In the light of this well-settled principle of law, we have to see whether the trial court in passing the impugned order acted without jurisdiction or illegally or improperly or that on account of exercising its jurisdiction any miscarriage of justice has been done. The facts have already been enumerated above. The public issue has to remain open for three days unless extended. In spite of these facts on record the trial court, after granting the restraint order, fixed the case on January 14, 1994, i.e., beyond the date of commencement of public issue. The impugned order was passed on December 24, 1993, i.e., the last working day. Thereafter the civil courts closed for the winter vacation till Janu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t from the facts of this case if the court instead of exercising its power under article 227 remands the case or directs the petitioner to move under Order 39, rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code or file an appeal at this stage it would be an act in futility. The date for commencement of the public issue is January 6, 1994, i.e., hardly two days after, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in giving the said directions. No doubt; where an appeal is provided this court should not interfere by any peremptory order with the ordinary course of jurisdiction. But, at the same time, we cannot lese sight of the fact that in cases wherein grave wrong is manifest and if allowed to continue it may cause irreparable loss by following regular proce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. My attention has been drawn to a public issue published by ICICI Premier, a public undertaking, in which also disclaimer has not been printed in bold letters. As regards other amendments those have been incorporated. Mr. Bansal, however, pointed out that under the heading "Inspection of documents" it is the investor who is to be allowed inspection whereas the petitioner has permitted inspection to unitholders only. To this Mr. Jaitley clarified that all those investors whose applications are received within three days would become automatically unitholders. No one will be deprived of units. Hence, in this case, investor and unitholder is one and the same thing. Moreover, after amendment, the printed form was submitted to the SEBI for app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates