TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have dragged the matter for another seven years. From the above facts, it becomes clear that the petitioners with an intention to avoid hearing of the matter before WTM have indulged in these proceedings. If according to the petitioners, the notice of information memorandum to the investors under RPAD is not required, it is open to them to appear before WTM and convince on the said aspects. If their contention is not accepted, they can avail whatever remedy is open to them. Since no right of the petitioners is affected by the notices Annexures-H and H1, no interference of this Court is required in the matter invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the above discussions, this Court does not find it necessary to refer to several judgments relied upon by both side. The contention that WTM has made up its mind to pass an order against the petitioners is a prematured contention. - WRIT PETITION NO.2243/2015 (GM-RES) - - - Dated:- 23-9-2021 - HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SRIRANGA S, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADANAN PILLAI R, CGSC FOR R1; SRI NITIN PRASAD, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced before the SAT. 8. The SAT by its order dated 21.10.2008 dismissed Appeal No.48/2006 making some adverse remarks against the petitioners in para 7 which reads as follows: 7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The appellant will now wind up the schemes in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations and repay the investors in accordance with the provision of Regulation 73. We make it clear that the appellant will send to its investors fresh information memoranda after getting the same vetted from the Board. As soon as the information memoranda are finalized and sent to the investors, the Board shall release the amount of ₹ 50 lacs lying with it together with interest accrued thereon to the appellant company to be utilized for repayment to the investors. The Board shall have its costs from the appellant which are assessed at ₹ 25,000/-. (Emphasis Supplied) 9. The petitioners challenged the said order of SAT before the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal D.No(s).326/2009 which came to be dismissed on 02.04.2009. Therefore the order that the petitioners shall submit information memorandum to respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andum to each investor by registered post and to withdraw the show cause notice dated 15.02.2011. Under the said reply, the petitioners only sought permission to furnish information memorandum to the investors by way of personal service and personal hearing in the matter. 15. Consequent to that, respondent No.2 issued another notice as per Annexure-H dated 09.12.2014 referring to its show cause notice dated 05.10.2010 and subsequent correspondences and information and granting opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners before the Whole Time Member ( WTM for short) on 30.12.2014 at 3.00 p.m. at the venue mentioned therein. 16. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 sent notices as per Annexures-H H1 dated 09.12.2014. Under Annexures-H H1, the petitioners were informed that opportunity is given to them to adduce evidences and clarifications in support of their contentions, if any, for the charges leveled against the petitioners in the said case. In the notices it was said that, if the petitioners fail to appear before WTM on the said date of hearing, it will be presumed that they have nothing further to state and respondent No.2 may proceed further in the matter. 17. The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565 (iv) Securities Exchange Board of India v. Mukkaram Jan WA No.270/2021 DD 09.04.2021 (v) Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 640 (vi) Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India (1992) 2 SCC 343. 23. Sri.Madanan Pillai R, CGSC for respondent No.1 adopts the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 24. As noted above, the case has a very long history. The proceedings have commenced from 18.02.2005. Admittedly, the petitioners are only provisionally registered under the Act to deal in Collective Investment Scheme. Not even the permanent registration certificate was issued. After four years of such provisional registration, respondent No.2 found several irregularities and illegalities in the dealings of petitioner No.1. Therefore, by order dated 18.02.2005 itself, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioners to wind up its Scheme and refund the amount of the investors. 25. The petitioners went on challenging the actions of the respondents before SAT, before the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as before this Court at every ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove facts, it becomes clear that the petitioners with an intention to avoid hearing of the matter before WTM have indulged in these proceedings. If according to the petitioners, the notice of information memorandum to the investors under RPAD is not required, it is open to them to appear before WTM and convince on the said aspects. If their contention is not accepted, they can avail whatever remedy is open to them. Since no right of the petitioners is affected by the notices Annexures-H and H1, no interference of this Court is required in the matter invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 31. In the light of the above discussions, this Court does not find it necessary to refer to several judgments relied upon by both side. The contention that WTM has made up its mind to pass an order against the petitioners is a prematured contention. 32. For the above said reasons, the petition is dismissed with cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- payable to respondent No.2 on or before 25.10.2021. The petitioners shall appear before the WTM on 25.10.2021 without any further notice. On such appearance, WTM shall hear the petitioners and pass the orders in accordance with law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
