9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be aware of the judgment reported at (T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal AIR 1977 SC 2421) that instructs that a court should assess a plaint on a meaningful - not a formal - reading thereof to ascertain the true substance of the claim. 2. The trial judge in this case has fallen woefully short of the duty that was cast on him by law. 3. Two of the defendants in the fanciful suit complain of the mechanical application of Order VII Rule 11 by the trial court and the rejection of the petitioners' application under that provision. The petitioners refer to Section 20A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 to say that the jurisdiction of a civil court to receive a matter covered by such provision has been expressly excl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f would dutifully deposit the money collected from less privileged depositors into a collective investment scheme operated by the first defendant. The first defendant employer, the plaint says, is authorised by its memorandum of association to invest in teak bonds, agro bonds and like investments. The first defendant apparently sought permission from the SEBI to continue the collective investment scheme and was granted a conditional licence. Several paragraphs of the plaint speak of all the requirements having been met by the first defendant save the key condition. The plaintiff makes out a case that his life and livelihood are at stake and if the business of the first defendant is affected by any order passed by SEBI, he would be prejudice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alt with. So that there is no further suspense, it must immediately be said that no intelligent reader would mistake the plaint for anything but a vicarious complaint made by one on behalf of another. It is a claim made by the first defendant using an employee as its mouthpiece. The plaintiff cannot have the remotest cause of action against SEBI or the orders passed by it in exercise of its authority under the 1992 Act. It is also necessary to see the nature of the first of the two orders which are assailed in the suit. In the order of May 11, 2012, the SEBI narrated the entire history of the first defendant company illegally continuing its collective investment scheme, of the first defendant company not complying with the conditions atta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the plaintiff. 8. Notwithstanding the several decorative reliefs adorning the plaint to disguise the action as genuine and some of them being ostensibly directed against the first defendant, it is evident that the substance of the action is to negate the orders passed by the SEBI in public interest in discharge of its statutory duties and to arrest the corrective measures sought to be put in place by the watchdog. Apart from the fact that the orders were issued on the first defendant and not on the plaintiff - and, consequently, the plaintiff having no cause of action in respect thereof - the suit is a blatant essay to bypass the first defendant's disability to directly challenge the SEBI orders. 9. The order impugned dated Octob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
