Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 492 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyInsolvency and Bankruptcy process - violated Regulation 3 of CIS Regulations - Debtor Company had launched CIS without registering itself as Collective Investment Management Company (CIMC) - Held that:- On seeing the present petition filed by the Operational Creditor, it seems there was no correspondence between this Creditor and the Corporate Debtor in between 2013 and 2016 except giving a notice in the year 2016 u/s 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. We don't say that Operational Creditor shall remain corresponding with the Corporate Debtor until this proceeding is initiated but if the present case is set against the background of SEBI orders, then an inference could also be drawn that an effort has been made to take out the Company as well as the investment already frozen by SEBI from the claws of SEBI. Of course, we are not proceeding on the premise that since no correspondence from 2013 to 2016 between the petitioner and the corporate debtor, this petition is liable to be dismissed, it can't be so. hen Bench comes to determination that SEBI order holds field on different connotation, then, when this Bench is of the opinion that the subject matter before this Bench modifies the rights and obligations over an asset upon which already SEBI order in action, then to our wisdom, no order could be passed invoking section 238 jurisdictions to nullify SEBI order. Our point is, the case before SEBI is a case involving fraud by the debtor entering into agreements not recognised by law and raised funds for an amount of more than ₹ 7000 crores, thereby this Code has no overriding effect over the order passed by SEBI, hence the jurisdiction under this Code will not come into operation to nullify the order passed by SEBI, henceforth, no order can be passed in this case in conflict to the order come into existence from SEBI to direct the interest of 51,55,516 victims. Petition dismissed. Petitioner entitlement to file this Petition as Creditor - Held that:- Here in the present case, it is designed as collective investment scheme falling under Section 11AA of the SEBI Act but whereas to do such business, no permission has been taken from the SEBI. Therefore even if is to be taken as Operational Creditor, since there is no lawful agreement recognisable by SEBI creating jural relationship in between the petitioner and the company, this relationship between the petitioner and the corporate debtor can't be considered either as relation in between the investor and the company or as relation in between the creditor and debtor, whereby we hereby hold that this Petitioner is not entitled to file this Petition as Creditor before this Bench.
|