Home Case Index All Cases SEBI SEBI + HC SEBI - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1887 - HC - SEBIJurisdiction of the Special Court treating offences committed territorially under the SEBI Act - scope of proceedings after the amendment of the SEBI Act 2014 and offences under the SEBI Act committed prior to the 2002 amendment - revisionist would argue that no part of the cause of action in the original complaint that was adjudicated by SEBI arose in Kolkata and the entire proceedings were initiated at Mumbai in which the revisionist was penalised as said first proceeding was carried in appeal to the Securities Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai, which affirmed the order of the Adjudicating Officer - HELD THAT - As in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs.- Classic Credit Limited 2017 (8) TMI 869 - SUPREME COURT related to a trial and not enforcement of a final order passed by the Adjudicating Officer. Since the final order of the Adjudicating Officer has been upheld all the way to the Supreme Court. The issue as to the person to whom the penalty should be paid can no longer be reopened. The impugned proceedings are for failure on the part of the Revisionist to repay the amount of the order of the Adjudicating Officer to the Regional Manager of the SEBI at Kolkata. The principle to be followed in this regard is that an executing court cannot go behind the original order that is sought to be executed. This Court finds no infirmity in the proceedings and, therefore, the revisional application must fail and hereby dismissed.
Issues involved:
Enforcement of SEBI order, Jurisdictional challenge, Compliance with penalty payment Enforcement of SEBI order: The judgment deals with the enforcement of an order issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) against the revisionist. The SEBI initiated proceedings to enforce the order of the Adjudicating Officer, which required the revisionist to pay a penalty within a specified time frame. The revisionist challenged the enforcement process, arguing that the cause of action did not arise in Kolkata where the penalty was payable, but in Mumbai where the proceedings were initiated. The revisionist's appeals to higher authorities, including the Supreme Court, upheld the original order of the Adjudicating Officer. The court noted that the enforcement proceedings were not about the trial but the execution of the final order, and held that the executing court cannot question the original order's validity. Jurisdictional challenge: The revisionist relied on a Supreme Court judgment to argue that offences under the SEBI Act committed before a specific amendment should be treated within the jurisdiction of the Special Court where the offence occurred. However, the court clarified that the referenced judgment related to a trial, not the enforcement of an order. Since the Supreme Court had confirmed the Adjudicating Officer's order, the issue of where the penalty should be paid was settled. The court emphasized the principle that an executing court must not question the original order being executed, leading to the dismissal of the revisional application. Compliance with penalty payment: The central issue in the judgment was the revisionist's failure to repay the penalty amount to the SEBI Regional Manager in Kolkata as directed by the Adjudicating Officer's order. Despite the revisionist's jurisdictional arguments, the court found no fault in the enforcement proceedings and upheld the requirement for the revisionist to comply with the payment direction. The judgment concluded by dismissing the revisional application without imposing any costs and allowing the parties to obtain a certified copy of the order upon completing necessary formalities.
|