Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 236 - MADRAS HIGH COURTMaintainability of writ petitions filed challenging the orders of SEBI - orders passed against the company as well as Mr. A. Venkatramani, the promoter - Held that:- Section 29 of the Act, 1992, enables the Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and the notification issued by the Central Government under Rule 5(2) is valid in law. The petitioners herein have not challenged the Rules nor the notification issued thereunder. In the absence of that, the petitioners are bound to follow the provisions of law by filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The contention that only one member that too, a non-judicial member is functioning as on today would not hold water as the Appellate Tribunal is functioning as on today and discharging its functions as per law. Any rule has to be read meaningfully and what is applicable to two members is applicable to one member. It is a necessity which has to be accepted. It is an admitted fact that, a number of appeals have been filed before the Appellate Tribunal and the same are heard and orders passed. Whether alternative remedy of appeal as provided in Act 15 of 1992 is a bar to entertain these writ petitions - Held that:- On a perusal of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, it is a considered view that a fully-fledged appeal is provided under the Act, that too, with member having special and technical knowledge in the relevant field. In such circumstances, no reason found to waive on the appeal remedy and to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the two writ petitions are not maintainable before the Court and the petitioners have to avail the statutory appellate remedy available under the Act - both the writ petitions are to be dismissed as not maintainable.
|