9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy thereof to the Regional Office of SEBI at 16, Camac Street, Kolkata-700 017. In view of the contents of the complaint, the petitioners prayed before SEBI to restrain the respondents 2 and 3 and Sourashtra Projects Limited from having access in the security market in terms of the said prospectus/letter of offer and a further prayer was made for restraining them from acting and/or entering into the security market by way of purchase and/or sale of securities. Since the complaint dated 13-3-2006 allegedly was not considered and disposed of by SEBI, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition praying for, inter alia , the following relief: ( a )Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the complaint lodged by the petitioners through their Lawyer dated 13-3-2006 after expunging the Word Flat No. 19, Lovely Rose, Juhu, Mumbai within the stipulated period of time; ( b )Writ in the nature of prohibition preventing the respondent No. 1 from giving any permission and/or allowing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to access in capital market in the name of Gremech Infrastructure Equipments Projects Limited or in any name; ( c )Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present petition, the petitioners impleaded SEBI through its Regional Office within the jurisdiction of this Court and its Head Office, beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. It is his submission that the purported complaint lodged by the petitioners was addressed to the Head Office of SEBI at Mumbai and it is the Head Office of SEBI at Mumbai that was called upon to initiate enquiries in respect of alleged acts of suppression of the respondents 2 and 3. It is also his submission that only a copy thereof was forwarded to the Regional Office at Kolkata without any request to it for taking action. He submitted that the Regional Office of SEBI has no role to play in the matter and hence by reason of the Regional Office of SEBI being located in Kolkata, that would not confer jurisdiction on this court to entertain and hear the writ petition. He invited the attention of this Court to the statements made in paragraphs 15, 18 and 26 of the writ petition and in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of maintaining the writ petition within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and submitted that all facts stated by the petitioners in the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents and contended that the said objections were without merit and the writ petition was well-high maintainable before this Court. He has referred to Schedule XXII of the Guidelines read with clauses 16.1-1.( b ), 16.2.3-1 and 16.2.4-3 thereof. By referring to the same, he contended that the Eastern Regional Office of SEBI has its office in Kolkata and any inaction on the part of the said office to deal with and dispose of the petitioners complaint could be subject of judicial review by this Court. He also referred to the provisions of section 11(4) of the said Act which lays down the functions of the Board. It is his categorical submission that the petitioners having brought to the notice of SEBI illegal dealings, it was obligatory for it to take action in terms of statutory power conferred on it. He also referred to the provisions of sections 15-I and 15A of the said Act to emphasize that the power to adjudicate is that of SEBI and it is the SEBI which has power to penalize persons who are found to have defaulted in acting in accordance with the terms of the statute. Based thereon, he submitted that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fringement of the legal and fundamental rights of the petitioners at the registered office of the petitioner No. 1 and the place of business of the petitioner No. 2 which are within the jurisdiction of this Court; (6)The petitioners have suffered legal injury at the registered office of the petitioner No. 1 at 22, Camac Street, Kolkata-700 016; and (7)The issuer company s registered office is at P-50, Princep Street, Kolkata-700 017. 12. Of the first three points and the last point mentioned above, the grievance that the Regional Office of SEBI at Kolkata has not taken any action pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioners is the only point worth consideration for deciding whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition or not. It would thus be the endeavour of this Court to find an answer to this. If the Regional Office by remaining inactive has failed to discharge a statutory duty and thereby has infringed any legally protected right of the petitioners, definitely this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain this petition overruling the preliminary objection. 13. Before delving deep to examine the contentious issues raised her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 and J.M. Desai s case ( supra ), law has been laid down by the Apex Court in the following terms : "It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus . A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something." 17. Keeping in mind the principles of law relating to locus standi referred to above, this Court proceeds to consider the grievance of the petitioners of inaction of the Regional Office of SEBI. 18. Provisions of the said guidelines, relevant for deciding the present controversy, are as follows : "16. The eligible merchant bankers shall ensure compliance with the following : 16.1 Submission of draft and final offer document. 16.1-1 ( a ) The offer documents of size up to Rs. 20 crores shall be filed by lead merchant bankers with the concerned regional office of the Board under the jurisdiction of which the registered office of the issuer company falls. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atements that petitioners legal and fundamental rights have been infringed and they have suffered legal injury as a result of the impugned inaction in Kolkata, there has been no endeavour on their part to demonstrate which of their rights have been infringed and how. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have applied pursuant to the prospectus/letter of offer and are likely to suffer a prejudice. It is merely their apprehension that consequent to and acting on the contents of the prospectus/letter of offer of Gremach, a future investor might be duped and cheated. Masquerading as protectors of the interests of the general public which might include future investors, the petitioners have brought to the surface their internal squabbles with the respondents 2 and 3. Allegation of suffering legal injury without a legal right is ill-conceived. This Court is constrained to observe that the petitioners have indulged in speculative litigations. 22. The SEBI, which is required to discharge duties and perform functions within the four corners of the said Act, and the said Rules framed thereunder and the guidelines, is not obliged to take into consideration any and every complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
