9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill-informed by reason. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as bereft of any merits. - Decided against the appellant. - W.P.(C) 5666/2014 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2014 - MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ For the Petitioner: Mr Sachin Mittal. For the Respondents : None. JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (in short SEBI ), whereby the complaint made by the petitioner against Swastik Investment Stock and Share Dealer was rejected. 2. The petitioner has alleged that it had entered into certain transactions during the financial years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 whereby certain shares held b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner and by the impugned order dated 30.12.2013 held as under:- 6. You may please note that Swastik Investment is not registered with SEBI as a stock broker or sub broker. It is observed from your complaint dated December 21, 2009 that you had transferred shares from your demat account to the demat account of Shri Goel and his firm. Such transfer is an off-market transfer between two private entities. Further, the said transaction(s) were between two entities which did not take place on the platform of any stock exchange. On our examination, it appears that some of the securities transferred by you were actually pledged by Sh. Sunil Goel and hence appear to be of the nature of loan, transactions which are outside the purvi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actions between an investor and a broker. The transfer of shares alleged to have been affected by the petitioner in favour of respondent no.2 were, plainly, in the nature of private transactions between two parties, which were unrelated to the securities market. 7. Thus, SEBI would have a very limited role to play in respect of such transactions. 8. The petitioner s contention that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in respect of the allegations relating to the alleged transaction entered into between the petitioner and respondent no.2 is misconceived. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to enforce the provisions of the SEBI Act in respect of matters, which are vested with the adjudicating authority is barred by virtue of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
