TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aryana have merely acted on the basis of communications/notices received from the appropriate authority in State of Maharashtra. Investigation pursuant to FIR No. 216 dated 30.09.2013 registered at police station MRA Manj, District Mumbai and sections 3 4 of the MPID Act appears to be pending at Mumbai. No ground is thus, made out for entertaining these petitions by this court. Petition dismissed. - CWP No. 11189 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2017 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amanpal S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate with Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate And Mr. Rohit Arya, Asst. A.G. Haryana. ORDER RAJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 against the Directors and key management personnel of NSEL, its borrowers and other persons under sections 409, 465, 467, 471, 477A and 120-B IPC. Thereafter, sections 3 4 of MPID Act were added in the said FIR. Complainant alleged that he was misled by the persons at the helm of affairs of NSEL. As a result, he traded on the said portal with the expectation that he would earn handsome returns. As per the averments made in the petition trading on NSEL portal was shut down on 31.07.2013 by the Exchange. It was claimed by management of NSEL that large sum was payable by the petitioner-company towards the transactions brokered by it. Investigation pursuant to the FIR also ensued. Petitioners claim that they have fully cooperated with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said judgment was dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 17.04.2017. The order passed reads as under:- The High Court has, inter alia, rejected the petition filed by the petitioners on the principle of forum conveniens holding that the designated Judge in the High Court of Bombay under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 would be more appropriate forum. We do not see any reason to interfere with this order. It is submitted that the petitioners have raised the issue of jurisdiction before the High Court of Gujrat viz. the petitioners are not the financial establishment. Since the notifications dated 12.03.2015 and 22.06.2015 issued by the Government of Mahara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
