TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some defaults and the Directors were accountable for such default. In furtherance of the final order that is required to be passed to provide for appropriate protection to persons who have lost their monies, it has passed an order meant to secure rectitude in financial dealings by Directors of companies and making them accountable for their alleged lapses. It can be a harsh situation for person who is retired from a company from the directorship to be held responsible for defaults but if there is any order that is passed by SEBI at Bombay which is causing inconvenience and which is not even a final order but merely an interim direction by SEBI, it is amenable for review by SEBI itself and does not require to be monitored through proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken as a final adjudication qua petitioner and hence cannot be modified by SEBI itself then every such order passed by SEBI is amenable for a challenge through an appeal to Securities Appellate Tribunal under Section 15 T of SEBI Act. The writ petition is not even competent or efficacious, since there is an alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Act. - Decided against the appellant. - CWP No.2873 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2015 - MR. K. KANNAN, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate JUDGMENT : K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is before this Court to challenge an order passed by the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Bombay against the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constituted one of the causes of action and it was open for the petitioner to resort to either one of the Courts either at Bangalore or at Chennai and therefore, the writ petition was maintainable. 4. The Senior Counsel would argue that this decision was on a reliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2004(6) SCC 254 where the Court referred to the issue of forum conveniens that allows for a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct a case to be brought within its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution brought by the 42nd amendment to the Constitution that allows for the Court's intervention if any of the causes of action arises in that Court. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y SEBI at Bombay which is causing inconvenience and which is not even a final order but merely an interim direction by SEBI, it is amenable for review by SEBI itself and does not require to be monitored through proceedings of this Court. Even as regards the forum conveniens, it will be wrong to argue that the petitioner's own residence will give him a cause of action, as explained above. The Full Bench was dealing with the case of an order which was passed by Appellate Tribunal at Chennai and the Court was finding that the jurisdiction was available to it and even either a case could have also been filed at Bangalore. Such situation does not arise here. No part of the cause of action arises here except the fact that the petitioner is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice even without notice was held to be not contemplated under SEBI Act of 1992 by the decision of a Division Bench in Anand Rathi Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India 2002(1) Mh.LJ 522. The decision is a full answer to the petitioner's plea of untenability of decision as violation of natural justice. This decision says a predecisional natural justice is not always necessary when ad-interim orders are made pending investigation or enquiry, unless so provided by the statute and rules of natural justice would be satisfied if the affected party is given post decisional hearing. 7. The writ petition is dismissed with the observations made above. Any of the observations made by this Court will have no bearing with the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
