9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ole attributed to the Petitioners in the complaint dated 15-12-2003 filed against the Petitioners and the accused Company. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 12-11-2009 framing notice against the Petitioners is set aside. - CRL. REV. PETITION NO. 88 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2011 - MUKTA GUPTA, J. Anil Hooda for the Petitioner. Sanjay Mann for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. By the present revision petition, the Petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 12-11-2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framing notice under section 251 Cr. P.C. against them for offences punishable under section 24(1), read with section 27 of the Securities an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid regulation nor took any steps for winding up of the scheme nor repayment to the investors as provided under the regulations and as such had violated the provisions of section 12(1B) of SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 5(1), read with Regulations 68(2), 73 and 74. On 7-12-2000 SEBI directed the accused Company to refund the money collected under the C.I.S. to the persons who had invested the money within a period of one month from the date of said directions and a notice was served in this regard. However, despite repeated directions and reminders sent by SEBI, the accused Company did not comply with the said Regulations and thus has committed the violation of sections 11(B), 12(B) rule with regulation's 68(1), 68(2), 73 74 of SEBI(CIS) R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regulate the excessive fund raising by the private entrepreneur and floating of multiple schemes throughout the country vide its press release dated 18-11-1997 conveyed that such schemes should be treated as Collective Investment Schemes under the SEBI Act, 1992 and SEBI was asked to frame regulations in this regard. The Respondent SEBI in the year 1999, notified Securities and Exchange Board of India [Collective Investment Scheme] Regulations, 1999 to regulate the floating of Collective Investment Scheme ("CIS") by the Companies. The accused company is a registered company under the provisions of Companies Act. It operated a Collective Investment Scheme and raised huge amounts from general public. Pursuant to the press release dated 26-11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Directors nor in-charge and responsible for the Company's day to day working. There is no specific role attributed to the Petitioners in the complaint dated 15-12-2003 filed against the Petitioners and the accused Company. Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora [2009] 94 SCL 140 has held that a mere averment that person is in-charge of the Company i.e., in-charge of the day to day management of the Company cannot make him vicariously liable. Their Lordships further clarified the position of directors who would be held responsible for the offences committed by the Company. In the case at hand, it is clear that the Petitioners are neither the Directors nor in anyway related/involved in the management or day to day affairs of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
