9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a: Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. H.K.Mehta, Adv. JUDGMENT: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Heard learned counsel for the parties. These three writ petitions are preferred by the same petitioners-company operating their branch offices in three different districts, namely, Deoghar, Sahebganj and Godda, whose business premises have been subjected to sealing by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the final order dated 3rd May, 2011 of the SEBI, which has been brought on record, is under challenge in Kolkatta High Court in W.P. NO. 12920(W) of 2011. However, learned counsel for the S.EB.I submits that there is no interim protection granted to the petitioners in the said case and SEBI is fully entitled to take all steps as are available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re available under the Act of 1992 in respect of such companies like the petitioners which has failed to conform to the provisions of the Act of 1992 while accepting deposits of the investors. He further submits that therefore the petitioners should be subjected to the jurisdiction of the SEBI and it will be open to the SEBI to take such steps as are available in law. Learned counsel for the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the business of such a company which is apparently operating in breach of the SEBI direction. He also submits that the SEBI in such circumstance after examining the petitioners' case may permit it to return investors money by opening its business premises, if so necessary or may also take any other steps in accordance with law. In these circumstances and the facts recorded hereinabove, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
