Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 656 - HC - Companies LawRe-Opening of proceedings - Held that:- The Guidelines do not confer a vested right in any person to insist on the acceptance of a proposed settlement - the adjudication which was initiated by SEBI had attained finality before the Supreme Court - A proceeding which had attained finality, cannot be reopened and the attempt to enforce terms of consent would result in nullifying the effect of the order of the Supreme Court which was impermissible - There was no merit in the submissions that were urged on behalf of the Petitioners - The Guidelines in so far as they mandate that proceedings should either be in contemplation or be pending before they can be resolved, were based on a valid rationale - The whole purpose of the Guidelines was to ensure that the time and effort of the regulator was devoted to cases which duly merit trial and enforcement - The Guidelines thus recognize an enabling power in SEBI to resolve certain cases which in the view of SEBI can be set at rest without compromising either an issue of principle or public interest. The High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be justified in issuing a mandamus to SEBI to act upon a settlement or to accept a settlement as proposed - The guidelines which have been framed by SEBI are administrative in character - it had been a settled principle of law that if administrative guidelines issued by an authority have no statutory force, they can confer no right on an individual that could be enforced by a writ of mandamus - it is equally fundamental, while analyzing the provisions of the guidelines to emphasise that where the guidelines have conferred a discretionary power upon SEBI to resolve a dispute which has still not reached the stage of adjudication or criminal action, or a dispute for that matter which is pending proceeding, it is for SEBI, on a considered view of all the circumstances of each case, to determine as to whether the dispute merits an amicable solution.
|