9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty to the petitioners to take all their defence before the trial court. Petitioners would further submit that the matter is already settled and the petitioners filed a memo and affidavit to compound the offence before Additional Judge XIX City Civil Court, Chennai, and so far, the learned Judge has not passed any order in the said memo. Neither the memo was rejected nor the order passed therein. It is understood that the trial court will normally not pass any speaking order in the memo; either it would record or reject the memo. Whereas in this case, no order is passed by the learned Judge in the said memo. If memo is still pending, the petitioner is at liberty to file a petition for compounding the offence. It is further informed that now the matter is pending before Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Therefore, in case, the petitioner file any petition for compounding the offence, learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, is directed to receive the petition for compounding the offence and dispose of the same in accordance with law - Criminal Original Petition No. 8660 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2020 - P. Velmurugan, J. For the Petitioner : A. Ramesh, Sr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m for winding up in accordance with SEBI (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations. We request you to send the Acceptance form duly filled and signed before 15th March 2000'. 3. It is seen that since the Petitioner company could not comply with the regulations of SEBI on or before the cut off date and therefore, they have to repay the amount to the investors. 4. The respondent/Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.PC., before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, seeking to take action against the company and its Directors for non compliance of the directions of SEBI and for the offence under section 24(1) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. 5. Subsequently, in view of the amendment to section 24 of SEBI Regulations, the punishment for the offence has been substituted for one year, or with fine, or with both by the SEBI (Amendment) Act, 2002, w.e.f. 29-10-2002 and it reads as follows:- 24. (1) Without prejudice to any award of penalty by the adjudicating officer under this Act, if any person contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of this Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led. The learned Senior counsel submits that the court has no jurisdiction as none of the transactions in the matter has taken place in Chennai and no cause of action arose in Chennai. The learned Senior counsel pointed out that when no part of cause of action arose in the city, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In support of his contention, the learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court. (i) Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police [2004] 8 SCC 100. (ii) Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan [Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2008, dated 2-4-2008]. 9. The learned Senior counsel further submits that in the place where cause of action arisen, that court has only got jurisdiction and therefore, the court where complaint filed where no cause of action arose, could not deal with the matter. 10. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel for SEBI placed reliance in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Vipra Farms (India) Ltd. [Criminal Appeal Nos.1761-63 of 2017], wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing schemes or winding up of the schemes. One of the conditions to be fulfilled in order to continue with the scheme is the applicant shall meet the minimum net worth of Rupees one crore within one year from the date of grant of provisional registration which shall be increased by Rupees one crore each within two years, three years, four years and five years from the date of grant of provisional registration , otherwise, they have to settle the amount. The petitioners company could not raise the above said investment and the amount in the scheme was not more than the limit fixed by the SEBI Regulations and therefore, they wanted to inform its Unit Holders/investors for winding up in accordance with SEBI Regulations. The Petitioners have paid the entire amount between May 2000 and July 2005. Therefore, they have settled the amount to the investors i.e., even before the respondent filed the private complaint before Magistrate under section 200 Cr.P.C., and hence, the process of repayment commenced. 16. During the pendency of the complaint, the Petitioners are stated to have settled the matter. But according to the respondent, the petitioners have not settled the matter. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
