TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial court, Delhi to continue. - Decided against the petitioner. - CRL. M.C. NO. 1043 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2012 - SURESH KAIT, J. V.P. Katiyar for the Petitioner. Sanjay Mann for the Respondent. ORDER Suresh Kait, J. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the complaint case No. 19/05 dated 26.11.2009 and its subsequent proceedings pending before the trial court, titled as "Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Maha Bhairav Plantation and Finance Ltd.". 2. The facts of the instant case, in brief, are that the petitioner incorporated a company in the year 1995 under the name and style of Maha Bhairav Plantation Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 308, Vinay Place, 11, Ashoka Marg, Lucknow-226001. The Government of India issued a Press Release on 26.11.1997 and, thereafter, a public notice dated 18.12.1997 was issued calling upon all the companies engaged in collective investment scheme to file their details. In the year 1998 the petitioner sent its reply to the Government of India and intimated that the petitioner company is not going to raise any fund in future from the public under the collective investment scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yana, Himachal Pradesh, J K Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Chandigarh and Delhi, and is situated in Delhi within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court and the application for registration as Collective Investment Management Company was required to be filed in prescribed format by the petitioner at the Delhi office of the Complainant Board. Report prescribed was also to be filed at Delhi office. More so, there is no office of SEBI in Utter Pradesh. 10. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that all correspondence/dealing by the Petitioner with the Complainant Board in this regard has been with the Northern Regional Office at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Since the petitioner did not make application for registration with SEBI as required under statutory obligation to wind up the schemes and repay the investors as prescribed under regulation 73 of SEBI CIS Regulations 1999. As per the said regulation, the petitioner was required to file a report with the SEBI on prescribed format. He did not do so. The statutory report (Winding up and repayment report) has not been filed by the accused till date. The cause of action therefore, has accrued in De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EBI Collective Investment Schemes (C.I.S.) Regulations 1999. Petitioner did not file the statutory reports on Prescribed format incompliance of the requirement caused upon the accused in regulation 73 after adhering to the procedure laid down therein pursuant to repayments to the investors, with the Securities and Exchange Board of India at its regional office at New Delhi showing that existing Collective Investment Schemes were wounded up and payments made to the investors as per the procedure laid down in regulation 73 and 74 of SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) regulations 1999. 17. That admittedly the Petitioner/Accused have not repaid to each investors till date, and have not filed the statutory report and failed to fulfill the requirement of filing of such report, dully audited after making final payment to all the investors, with the regional office of SEBI as was required as such the accused company had failed to comply with statutory provisions and as such violated the provisions of law. 18. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 pointed out that the accused till date have not complied with the provisions of the SEBI (CIS) Relegations 1999 by filing of the requisite re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having jurisdiction over any of those localities. The provision has further widened the scope by stating that in case wherein the offence was committed partly in one local area the court either of the localities can exercise jurisdiction to try the case. Further again, Section 179 of the Code stretches its scope to a suit wider horizon. It reads thus: 178. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues- when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued." 21. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 pointed out that this Hon'ble High Court has observed in Crl. Appeal No.220/2010 in the case titled as Ankur Forest Project Development India Ltd. v. SEBI [2011] 106 SCL 578 / 10 taxmann.com 58 (Delhi) wherein it is held as under: "Under Section 27 of the Act, in cases of offences by companies, every person who at the time when the offence was committed was in-charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... winding up of the existing collective investment scheme. Regulations 73 74 states as under: "Manner of repayment and winding up 73. (1) An existing collective investment scheme which: (a) has failed to make an application for registration to the Board; or (b) has not been granted provisional registration by the Board; or (c) having obtained provisional registration failed to comply with the provisions of regulation 71; shall wind up the existing scheme. (2) the existing Collective Investment Scheme to be wound up under sub-regulation (1) shall send an information memorandum to the investors who have subscribed to the schemes, within two months from the date of receipt of intimation from the Board, detailing the state of affairs of the scheme, the amount repayable to each investor and the manner in which such amount is determined. (3) The information memorandum referred to in sub-regulation (2) shall be dated and specify such other disclosures of the scheme. (4) The Board may specify such other disclosures to be made in the information memorandum, as it deems fit (5) The information memorandum shall be sent to the investors within one week from the date of the information memora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instant petition is that Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the complaint case filed by the respondent because of the fact that petitioner is working at Lucknow has its registered office at Lucknow and the alleged offence was committed at Lucknow. 28. The case of respondent no. 1 is that all correspondence/dealing by the petitioner with the Complainant Board in this regard have been with the Northern Regional office at New Delhi, within territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. The petitioner did not make application for registration with SEBI as required under statutory obligation to wind up the schemes and repay the investors as prescribed Under Section 73 of SEBI (CIS) Regulations 1999. As per the said Regulation, petitioner was required to file report with SEBI on prescribed format. He did not do so. The statutory report (Winding up and Repayment Report) has also not been filed till date. The cause of action therefore, accrued in Delhi. The petitioner also had its Office at Delhi at B-30, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. More so, the communication received on the letter head of the compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
