|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1393 Records
-
2021 (2) TMI 1195
Amendment in cause title - power of Tribunal to review its own order - HELD THAT:- Failure of non-compliance on the part of the Petitioner disentitles it to continue with this Petition. It is also projected by the Ld. Advocate for the Corporate Debtor that this Tribunal does not have the power to review of its own order.
In so far as this Petition is concerned, the Petitioner as reflected in the cause title contains both the name of the Sole Proprietor as well as the name of the Sole Proprietary concern and hence the Petition can be taken on record.
The Corporate Debtor is directed to file its reply to this Petition within a period of three (3) weeks from today - Post this matter on 08.03.2021 for completion of the pleadings and enquiry.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1194
Seeking for a direction to the respondent to file a final report - HELD THAT:- Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), the respondent is directed to expedite the investigation and file a final report/referred charge sheet as the case may be in Crime No.12 of 2020 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/uploading of the order.
The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1193
Seeking permission for withdrawal of Criminal Original Petition - HELD THAT:- Since the charge sheet has already been filed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Criminal Original Petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.
The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1192
Seeking extension of time period of 322 days between the date of order of admission dated 30.01.2020 till the actual date (i.e. 16.12.2020) on which the present IRP came to know about the appointment and to declare 16.12.2020 as the date of commencement of CIRP - HELD THAT:- As evident from the various reports, since the order dated 30.01.2020 was uploaded on the website of this Tribunal on the very next day of the pronouncement i.e., on 31.01.2020, it is deemed to have been communicated to all the parties. Therefore, the plea that the parties had no knowledge about the order dated 30.01.2020 does not merit any consideration. Further, the IP, who admittedly pursuant to the Rule 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016, had given his consent dated 17.12.2020 in the Form-2 to act as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the present matter was obligated to keep a track of the status of the case, for which he had given the express consent.
In view of the amendment by Section 12 of IBC 2016, by which the CIRP shall mandatorily be completed within a period of 330 days including any extension of the period of CIRP granted and the time taken in legal proceedings, there are no merit in the prayers for exclusion of the period of 322 days from CIRP and declaration of 16.12.2020 as the date of commencement of CIRP.
In the interest of taking the CIR process forward, what could utmost be done in terms of the Regulation 40C of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2020 is to exclude the period of Lockdown imposed by Central Government in the wake of Covid-19 and accordingly, the exclusion of the period from 25.03.2020 to 30.06.2020 i.e., a total period of 97 days from the period of CIRP is ordered with a direction to the IRP to expedite the CIR process.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1191
Seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors for their wilful disobedience of Orders - Section 425 of Companies Act, 2013 R/w Sections 11, 12 & 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 R/w. Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Though notices were issued to the Respondent, none appeared for the Respondent. Therefore, it is not known whether the contemnor is financially solvent or not, in order to initiate contempt proceedings.
The Contempt Proceedings need not not be initiated - Contempt Petition is hereby disposed off.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1190
Pension Scheme - fixation of cut-off date for implementing the Pension Scheme - It was the plea of the appellants that all the employees of the Corporation, who retired prior to 05.06.1995, were already paid all the retiral benefits including the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund - HELD THAT:- It is clear that all the members of the respondent-Union, while in service, were governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. All those employees who retired before 05.06.1995, were paid all retiral benefits, applicable to them. As the Pension Scheme was not in existence during the relevant time, it was not the case of violation of any service conditions either. The Pension Scheme is introduced by way of notification dated 06.10.1995, by giving effect from 05.06.1995, on which date the Cabinet has approved the Scheme. The employees who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and retired prior to 05.06.1995 and the employees who were in service and continued after 05.06.1995, of the appellant- Corporation, cannot be treated as a homogeneous class. The retired employees, who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, on their retirement had already received the benefits of such Scheme, constitute different class than those employees who were in service as on 05.06.1995. There is a valid reason for giving effect to the Pension Scheme from 05.06.1995, though the notification was issued on 06.10.1995. The cut-off date, i.e, 05.06.1995 is fixed on the ground that the Cabinet has approved the Scheme from such date.
On the facts of this case, it is to be noticed that when the members of the respondent-Union retired, there was no Pension Scheme at all. They were merely governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and, on retirement, they were already granted the benefit of such Scheme. In that view of the matter, only on the spacious plea that all the employees of the Corporation constitute homogeneous class, cannot question the cut-off date fixed for grant of Pension Scheme.
The High Court, without noticing the difference of factual background, in the cases relied on by the respondent-writ petitioner and without independently considering the issue in question, has allowed the writ petition. In view of the same, the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.
Appeal allowed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1189
Issues involved:
1. Disposal of I.A. 1801/2020
2. Disposal of M.A. 3930/2019 and M.A. 3273/2019
3. Disposal of M.A. 24/2019
Analysis:
1. Disposal of I.A. 1801/2020:
The Tribunal, presided over by Shri H.V. Subba Rao and Shri Shyam Babu Gautam, JJ., conducted a virtual hearing regarding I.A. 1801/2020. The liquidator's counsels, Mr. Nithish Bangera and Mr. Naresh Sheth, along with the respondent's counsels, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Nikunj Mehta, were present. The Tribunal allowed I.A. 1801/2020, thereby permitting the liquidator to proceed with the e-auction as the earlier status quo order was vacated. The prayer clauses 'a,' 'b,' and 'c' of the application were disposed of, directing the listing of miscellaneous applications and vacating the status quo order while instructing the respondent to hand over possession of the premises and deposit arrears in rent. Consequently, I.A. 1801/2020 was allowed, leading to the disposal of M.A. 4128/2019.
2. Disposal of M.A. 3930/2019 and M.A. 3273/2019:
The petitioner sought similar reliefs in M.A. 3930/2019 and M.A. 3273/2019. With the petitioner granted liberty to participate in the e-auction, the reliefs claimed in both M.A.s were granted, resulting in the disposal of both applications. The Tribunal found that nothing further survived in M.A. 3930/2019 and M.A. 3273/2019, and accordingly, both were disposed of.
3. Disposal of M.A. 24/2019:
Considering the cooperation of the erstwhile management with the liquidator, M.A. 24/2019 was deemed infructuous and subsequently disposed of. The Tribunal scheduled the Company Petition to be listed on 05.04.2021, indicating the progression of the case.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and disposal of the various applications showcased a thorough consideration of the legal aspects involved, resulting in the appropriate directives and resolutions for each issue presented before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench Court III.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1188
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, there is an outstanding debt which is more than ₹ 1 lakh being the minimum at the relevant time for filing of an application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016. The debt is due and payable to the Financial Creditor by the Corporate Debtor has committed default in repayment. The first acknowledgement of debt is well within the original period of limitation from the date of default. Second confirmation/acknowledgement also extends the limitation for filing this application. Thus, the debt is not barred by limitation.
The application is otherwise complete and compliances with the requirements of IBC, 2016 r.w. IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1187
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The petition made by the Financial Creditor is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is in excess of the minimum amount of one lakh rupees as stipulated under section 4(1) of the Code at the relevant time. But on perusal of the master data of the Corporate Debtor it is seen that the Corporate Debtor has given a Corporate Guarantee of ₹ 4,82,42,00,000/-.
On further enquiry and on perusal of the financial statements for the financial year 2018-19 of the Corporate Debtor, it has come to light that the net worth of the Corporate Debtor is ₹ 15,36,39,015/-. It is hard to convince oneself that a Company having a networth of ₹ 15,36,39,015/- is not able to make a payment of ₹ 3,00,000/-. It appears that the petition at hand has been filed in collusion with the Corporate Debtor.
Petition cannot be admitted and is dismissed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1186
Assessment u/s 153A - incriminating material found during the course of search or not? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have held that the addition is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search and the assessment was not pending on the date of search. In the proceedings before the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT, the Revenue has not made any attempt as to disclose the incriminating material.
The view taken by the tax authorities based on the decision of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT ]cannot be held to be perverse. The questions of law proposed by the Revenue are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1185
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - diversion of funds during the demonetisation period - conversion of old currency notes into new currency notes - the trial of the offences under the PMLA can proceed or not, when the FIR with regard to the schedule offence was closed for want of evidence and in the absence of connected evidence with a crime of schedule offence - prosecution for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- From a reading of the provisions in the PMLA that though the commission of schedule offence is a fundamental pre-condition for initiating proceedings under the Act, ''the offence of money laundering is independent of the schedule offences'', the scheme of the PMLA indicates that it deals only with laundering of money acquired by committing the schedule offence. In other words, the PMLA deals only with the process or activity with the ''Proceeds of the Crime'' including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use. So that in the Act under Section 44 explanation (i) clearly indicated that the Special Court while dealing with the offence under the Act shall not be dependent upon any orders passed, in respect of the schedule offence.
Another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the observation of the trial Court, while granting bail, that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence will not be enough to quash the case which has to be decided only on legal evidence let in by the respondent. Therefore, we find that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this aspect is legally unsustainable and is accordingly rejected.
The explanation to Section 44(1) of the PMLA is complete answer to the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The distinction that the counsel for the petitioners sought to make for distinguishing the law laid down by this Court in VGN Developers [2019 (10) TMI 1236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is a distinction without a difference. Considering the above fact, we should not forget that money laundering, being an economic offence, poses a serious threat to the National economy and National interest and committed with cool calculation and deliberate design and with motive of personal gain regardless of the consequences to the society.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1184
Validity of approved Resolution Plan - Priority of rights created by transfer - treatment of all Secured Financial Creditors equally though all Financial Creditors did not hold first charge on the properties of Respondent No.4 - contravention of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Appellant was part of COC and the COC had in 9th Meeting deliberated and unanimously agreed that distribution of the proceeds under the Resolution Plan to the Financial Creditors shall be in proportion to the share of the voting rights of the relevant Financial Creditors in the COC. In the e-voting which came to be held, the Appellant had consented to the Resolution Plan which even specifically stated the specific amounts which will be given in the distribution. Having agreed to such Resolution Plan, the Appellant needs to be estopped from questioning the same. The Appellant in the Appeal has claimed that the Appellant had sent e-mail to the Resolution Professional on 05.03.2020 asking why other lenders had been treated equally with the Appellant - The Appellant could see the options open to it and chose one. The Appellant took informed decision to vote in favour. Having done so, the Appellant needs to be estopped from questioning the Resolution Plan with regard to the manner of distribution.
Apart from this, considering decision of the COC that the distribution would be in proportion to the share of voting rights, being commercial decision of the COC to see through the CIRP proceedings so as to reach a resolution, we would not like to interfere - IBC is subsequent law, with Section 238 giving overriding effect. When COC has the discretion as mentioned, Resolution Professional could not have relied on Section 48 of Transfer of Property Act, which is in context of contractual rights, to hold back the Resolution Plan from COC.
There are no substance in the Appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1183
Pendency of proceedings before the High Court / NCLT and transfer of proceedings - HELD THAT:- The printout of the judgments in ACTION ISPAT AND POWER PVT. LTD. VERSUS SHYAM METALICS AND ENERGY LTD. [2020 (12) TMI 535 - SUPREME COURT] and FORECH INDIA LTD. VERSUS EDELWEISS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. [2019 (1) TMI 1442 - SUPREME COURT] may be produced before the Court by learned counsel and then will make submissions on this issue.
Put up on 17.2.2021.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1182
Undisclosed interest income in HSBC Geneva - balance appearing in the undisclosed foreign bank account - HELD THAT:- As same amount is taxed once in assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 ITAT has rightly held that there could not be any dispute on the legal proposition that the very same amount cannot be taxed twice in the two assessment years.
We do not find any perversity in the aforesaid observations made by the learned ITAT in respect of additions made on quantum and interest. In view of the aforesaid, the question of law raised by the Appellant-Revenue in the present appeals in respect of quantum does not arise for our consideration. Since the addition on quantum cannot be sustained, the addition of interest cannot survive. Thus, no question of law arises in respect of deletion of addition of interest component
Discovery of undisclosed jewellery in search proceedings - HELD THAT:- We note that undisputedly the quantum of jewellery declared in the wealth tax returns of the assessee and his family members was much higher, than the jewellery found during the course of search. CBDT Instruction dated 11-5-1994 provides that no seizure should be made in the search for the jewellery held by the ladies at 500 gms, girls at 250 gms and males at 100 gms each. Though the Instruction speaks of not seizing the same, the extended meaning of the same shows the intention that the jewellery is to be treated as explained one and is not to be treated as unexplained for the purpose of Income-tax Act. This instruction came to be considered by several Benches all over India in which it has been held that it would be relevant for the purposes of making addition as well. When this instruction is applied to the facts of the case, we observe that the possession of gold jewellery of 38,748.28gms, which is far less than declared jewellery of 46,634.842 gms it cannot be held to be unexplained.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1181
Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 - Contractual right to compensatory payment - Apportionment of the liabilities between the instrumentalities of the state of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana - HELD THAT:- It is well-settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted only on the basis that the dispute pertains to the contractual arena. This is for the simple reason that the State and its instrumentalities are not exempt from the duty to act fairly merely because in their business dealings they have entered into the realm of contract. Similarly, the presence of an arbitration clause does oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though, it still needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can justifiably be invoked. The jurisdiction under Article 226 was rightly invoked by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh in this case, when the foundational representation of the contract has failed. TSIIC, a state instrumentality, has not just reneged on its contractual obligation, but hoarded the refund of the principal and interest on the consideration that was paid by Unitech over a decade ago. It does not dispute the entitlement of Unitech to the refund of its principal.
Contractual right to compensatory payment - HELD THAT:- Unitech had entered into the project since it wished to pursue it. Unitech cannot be penalized for wanting to continue with the agreement, as APIIC navigated disputes over its claim to the land. While Unitech was put to notice of the existence of a litigation, the Development Agreement which stipulated an encumbrance-free handover also specified that its covenants would supersede all other understandings and that its terms would rank as the first, in order of interpretive priority. The judgment of the Division Bench suffers from a clear and patent error in restricting the liability of paying interest with effect from 14 October 2015. The liability must date back, in terms of the Development Agreement, from the date on which the respective payments were made by Unitech. Interest at the contractual SBI-PLR rate has to be paid to Unitech. However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the conscionability of Article 14.3.1 read with Article 1(h) of the Development Agreement stipulating compensatory payment at the SBI-PLR, compounded annually, becomes suspect.
In a similar vein, in interpreting Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, this Court has held that a contractually-stipulated interest rate, if found to be penal, excessive or in terrorem can be reduced to a reasonable rate of compensation - considering the position of Unitech-which knowingly entered into the Development Agreement with full knowledge of the pending litigation and with an intention to continue with the project after a delay of over seven years, up until a decision by this Court, it is found that the interest rate is payable to Unitech, without compounding.
Apportionment of the liabilities between the instrumentalities of the state of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana - HELD THAT:- Schedule I provides for the Zonal offices pertaining to Telangana region. Serial no.3 refers to the Shamshabad and Mauli Ali region which includes the area covered by the project site. The land which is comprised in the project site falls exclusively within the Telangana region as specified in the demerger scheme - following the course of action which has been adopted by the learned Single Judge, we are not adjudicating finally upon the rights inter se between TSIIC and APIIC. TSIIC shall refund the amounts due and payable to Unitech in terms of the present judgment. TSIIC would be at liberty to pursue its rights and remedies in accordance with law over its claim for apportionment on which, we express no final opinion.
The Development Agreement stands impounded and shall be forwarded by TSIIC within two weeks to the competent authority for registration and for assessment of stamp duty. The assessment to stamp duty and formalities for registration shall be completed within one month. The amount payable towards stamp duty, penalty (if any) and registration charges shall be paid initially by TSIIC into the account of the competent authority within two weeks of the determination and shall be adjusted against the refund payable by TSIIC to Unitech - The appeal filed by Unitech, arising out of SLP(C) No 9019 of 2019 is allowed in part by setting aside the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court which confined the liability to pay interest only with effect from 14 October 2015.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1180
Bogus LTCG - denial of exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act which the assessee had earned on the sale of equity shares after holding them for more than a year - HELD THAT:- Assessee had paid service tax and STT and shares were sold through screen based transactions wherein the exact time and order numbers are mentioned. From the Demat statement, we further observe that assessee was holding certain other scrips also. The assessee, therefore, had filed sufficient evidences to prove the genuineness of the transactions but authorities below has rejected the claim of the assessee on the basis of an investigation report of the Department whereby the scrip was held to be penny stock which was being used for providing bogus long term gains.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court [2021 (1) TMI 1008 - DELHI HIGH COURT] startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion but the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The Hon'ble court further distinguished the judgment in the case of Suman Podar which was in favour of Revenue. The Hon'ble court further held that case of Sumati Dayal u/s CIT was also not applicable to the assessee. The Hon'ble court further held that reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the investigation report of Investigation Wing without further corroboration on the basis of cogent material does not justify his conclusion that the transaction is bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1179
Seeking directions pertaining to auction sale of assets for waiver of interest demanded on balance sale consideration - seeking direction to the Respondent not to treat non-payment of interest on the balance sale consideration by the Applicant as a default - seeking to refrain from disqualifying the Applicant as successful bidder - seeking to forfeit the earnest money deposit - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that there was a delay on the part of the Applicant to pay balance sale consideration but the issue to be decide in this case is whether the delay was solely on account of the Applicant and if yes, the Applicant has to pay interest for the delayed period @12 % P.A. as per regulation, auction notice.
In the instant case the Applicant had sought a specific clarification from the Liquidator who has clarified as discussed in pre-para GIDC also taken time to arrive at the amount payable as sub division charges, surveys conducted on various occasions, issued provisional order to pay “concession charges” along with other conditions to be fulfilled etc. From the submissions it is noted that the Applicant never denied payment of balance sale consideration neither on account of incapable, financial difficulty, nor willful nonpayment but on the other hand because of the specific clarification issued by the Respondent, time taken by GIDC as discussed above and finally on account of COVID 19 situation and Regulation 47 A of IBBI Regulation etc. It is also noted that the Applicant had made payment of ₹ 1,57,46,696/- on 25.06.20202 towards interest under protest. The submissions of the Applicant is acceptable.
The delay in payment of balance sale consideration cannot be attributed to the Applicant, successful bidder. The interest burden thus cannot be fastened on him. The Applicant is not liable to pay interest as claimed by the Respondent. Therefore, an amount of ₹ 1,57,46,696/- paid towards interest by the Applicant under protest is to be refunded/adjusted by the Liquidator within 30 days from the date of this order - Application allowed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1178
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues or not - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - service of notice - notice was not replied - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Since initiation of insolvency proceedings involves various proceedings contemplated under the supervision of IRP/RP, where IRP/RP is to be assisted by the Management/ staff of the Corporate Debtor, it is necessary that Corporate Debtor should be aware Of CIRP proceedings. And principles of natural justice also mandates that concerned party should be given proper notice of proceedings. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority ordered notice to the Respondent on 03.03.2020, and case stands posted on various dates viz., 05.01.2021, 06.01.2021 and 22.01.2021. However, none appears for the Respondent and no reply is filed.
It is also relevant to point out here that consideration of mere debt and default in question, without knowing/ serving notice on the Corporate Debtor, would be futile exercise. Even the information furnished on behalf of the Petitioner, as stated supra, would be of no use. The Adjudicating Authority cannot come to conclusion basing on one side version of the Petitioner. And the Corporate Debtor is stated to have cleared all the invoices of the Operational Creditor till the month of February, 2017 - Though invoices in question contemplate within 10 days, failing which it carries interest @ 24% Demand filed the payment p.a, the Petitioner has not initiated any legal proceedings prior to the instant Proceedings and the Petitioner has not explained the reasons for not initiating proceedings earlier.
As per the MCA website, the Corporate Debtor Active compliance was Active Non-Compliance. Since the year of 2016, the Corporate Debtor has failed to file its statutory returns. However, it is not known whether the Company is on active rolls of the ROC or not. If the Company failed to comply with statutory compliances, the ROC can take appropriate action to strike off it. And while striking off the Company, ROC can take into consideration of interest of Petitioner herein, in terms of extant provisions of Companies Act, 2013, and the Rules made thereunder - the Company petition is barred by laches and limitation, and it is filed with an intention to recover alleged debts, which is against the object of Code.
Petition is hereby disposed of by directing the ROC, Bengaluru to examine whether the Corporate Debtor has complied with the statutory requirement(s) and to take appropriate action, and while taking action.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1177
SEBI seeking information from the petitioner regarding alleged deemed public issue - HELD THAT:- Awareness Programme conducted by the SEBI during the year 2017, a few investors reported that the petitioner Company has been mobilising funds from the public and have issued bonus shares. As alleged that the petitioner subsequently stopped buying back the shares - A preliminary enquiry made by the SEBI, it was noticed that the petitioner-Company has passed resolutions authorising issue of equity shares to any person including existing members of the Company in any manner the board may deem fit.
The language of the resolution indicated that what was intended by the Company was not strictly private placement. It was under the said circumstances that the SEBI issued notices to the petitioner-Company. Though the information sought for were expected to be maintained by the petitioner in their statutory records and registers, such information was not made available to the SEBI. It was under such circumstances that the SEBI has issued the show-cause notices impugned in the writ petition.
The information sought for by the SEBI related back to the year 2001. However, the required information are those which are required by the petitioner to be statutorily maintained. Therefore, the delay in issuing these Show Cause Notices, cannot cause prejudice to the petitioner.
Reasons for the delay in initiation of the proceedings, it is to be noted that under Section 11(2)(f) of the SEBI Act, 1992, promoting investor education is one of the functions of the Board. In one of such meetings of investors, allegations were raised against the petitioner. The SEBI made their own enquiry and noted that the annual reports of the Company indicated authorising issue of shares to any person including existing members of the Company in any manner the Board may deem fit. The language of the resolutions indeed gives rise to a suspicion or indication that the Company proposed to issue shares to the public. It is for the said reason that the SEBI sought explanation from the petitioner.
Petitioner, instead of cooperating with the SEBI, providing requisite information, has approached this Court challenging the show-cause notices. Allegation against the petitioner and the information sought for by the SEBI would indicate that what was sought for by SEBI are information a Company is expected to maintain.
Going through the show-cause notices impugned in the writ petition, it cannot be said that jurisdictional facts necessary to initiate proceedings do not exist. Prima facie, the delay in initiation of the proceedings will not cause prejudice to the petitioner, in the nature of the information sought for by SEBI. Even if the petitioner is incapacitated to provide any information required by the SEBI, the petitioner can very well give reasoned explanation for the same to the SEBI.
The issue is presently only at a show-cause stage. It will be thoroughly inappropriate for this Court to interfere with the statutory proceedings at this stage.
-
2021 (2) TMI 1176
Territorial Jurisdiction - Validity of registration of FIR - petitioner submits that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Gautam Budh Nagar - Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act - HELD THAT:- State counsel, on instructions, submits that even in 161 Cr.P.C. statement, it has not been stated by the complainant that the incident occurred at Gautam Budh Nagar. He prays for three weeks time to file counter - List this case on 25.03.2021.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, State authorities are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners till the next date of hearing - It is made clear that investigation shall go on and the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation. Non cooperation of the petitioners in the investigation may give reason to the State to file application seeking vacation of the interim order.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
............
|
9911796707
