9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agistrate. It is alleged in the complaint that section 11 of the SEBI Act casts a duty on the SEBI to protect the interest of investors in securities. It was alleged that the SEBI noted that many companies were issuing instruments such as agro bonds, plantation bonds, etc., which were to be treated as "Collective Investment Schemes" and thus the SEBI framed and notified the "Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations 1999" and as per regulation 68 thereof persons operating Collective Investment Schemes had to register the scheme before the Board and as per regulation 73 in the failure to do so, the scheme would be wound up with information to the investors and the board and simultaneously the investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pawan Kumar Goel accused No. 5, Dharam Pal accused No. 6, Kanhaiya Lal accused No. 8, Krishan Chand accused No. 10 and Sulochana Devi Goel accused No. 11 are the petitioners in Crl. M. C. No. 82 of 2005. In the petitions, all of them have stated that they had resigned as directors of accused No. 1 in the years 1994 and 1996 and thus are not liable for default of the company. 5. It may be noted that in the petitions no other ground of challenge has been raised. I highlight that in neither petition has it been stated that the complaint was barred by limitation, in that, compliance with the SEBI (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations, 1999, had to be made by March 31, 2000 and that the complaint was filed on December 15, 2003 and that sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence was a continuing wrong, it had to be held that the offence was not a continuing wrong and thus had held that the complaint launched by SEBI for not registering a Collective Investment Scheme by March 31, 2000, is barred by limitation taking into account that the complaint was filed in the year 2004. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents cites a contra decision rendered by A. K. Pathak J., on October 25, 2010, in Crl. M. C. No. 969 of 2010 Samarpan Agro & Livestock Ltd. v. SEBI [2011] 165 Comp Cas 169 /[2010] 104 SCL 584 /8 taxmann.com 55 (Delhi)) in which it was held that a Collective Investment Scheme, if not registered by March 31, 2000, would result in an offence which is a continuing offence. 10. Having considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter was never brought to the notice of the learned single judge who decided Virender Kumar Singh's case (supra). And hence, the decision proceeds as if, by not registering a Collective Investment Scheme by March 31, 2000, the offence got completed. I highlight that the offence is not to have got registered the Collective Investment Scheme. The offence is to continue with the scheme post March 31, 2000, in spite of the scheme not being registered and the deposits not returned to the investors. 15. A. K. Pathak J., has correctly summarised the legal position in paragraph 7 of his decision as under (page 174 of 165 Comp. Cas.) : "A conjoint reading of the aforesaid regulations clearly shows that if a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
