9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for conduct of its business, as such, he is also liable for the offence in view of section 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992 – Held that:- plea of the petitioner is that he was neither a Director nor he had any association with the accused company, namely, M/s. Janraksha Green Forests Limited. Since parties are at dispute in this regard, it is apparent that the plea raised by the petitioner is a question of fact, which can be determined only on the basis of evidence, which is the subject-matter of trial. no reason to invoke section 482 CrPC to quash the impugned summoning order or the complaint qua the petitioner. Petition is accordingly dismissed - CRI. M.C. NO. 858 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2011 - AJIT BHARIHOKE, J. Ms. Beenashaw N. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration of the Collective Investment Schemes run by it. Since the company did not fulfil certain requirements for the grant of registration, its application was rejected. Intimation of rejection of application was sent to the accused company vide letter dated 15-2-2002. Pursuant to the rejection of application for registration, in terms of Regulation 73 of SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1995, the accused company was required to send an information memorandum to the investors who had subscribed to its schemes within two months from the date of receipt of information. Further, on completion of winding up and repayment, the company was also required to file a detailed report within 3 months from the date of informatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annual return of the company submitted to Registrar of Companies in which petitioner is not shown as Director and petitioner has also referred to the copy of order dated 6-12-2004 wherein consumer court has recorded that "respondent No. 4 Prem Raj Dhand (inadvertently mentioned) in the complaint as Varinder Kumar Dhand". It is urged that from the above, it is clear that the petitioner was not associated with the accused company in any manner, as such, his inclusion as accused in the complaint is abuse of process of law. Learned counsel has urged for setting aside of impugned order as well as complaint qua the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner is in the habit of operating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , respondent No. 1 has placed on record a letter purportedly written by the petitioner whereby he claimed to have resigned from the Board of Directors of the company on 29-4-2000. 8. Only plea of the petitioner is that he was neither a Director nor he had any association with the accused company, namely, M/s. Janraksha Green Forests Limited (respondent No. 2). This plea is denied by the respondent No. 1 on the strength of certain communications sent by accused company and the petitioner noted above. Since parties are at dispute in this regard, it is apparent that the plea raised by the petitioner is a question of fact, which can be determined only on the basis of evidence, which is the subject-matter of trial. Thus, I find no reason to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
