9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is a third accused in C.C.No.37 of 2004, on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The respondent is the complainant in the case. The said case was instituted on a private complaint alleging that the accused in the said case, including the petitioner, have committed offence punishable under Section 24(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. In the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1999. As per the said Regulations, for commencing collective investment scheme, one should apply for registration with SEBI and obtain such a registration in terms of Regulation 73(1) of the said Regulations. But the first accused company did not make any such application seeking registration and thus, the scheme in violation of Section 12(1B) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oppose this petition. According to her, a notice was issued to the first accused company by the respondent herein, calling upon the company to give the particulars of the Directors of the company. In the reply, it was informed to the respondent that the petitioner was also a Director of the company. It is based on the said information furnished by the first accused company, the prosecution was la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Companies, which has been produced before this Court, shows that the petitioner was not a Director of the company with effect from 18.11.1998. Thus, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was not a Director of the first accused company during the relevant time in the year 1999, when the Regulation came into force and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is not sustainable. 8. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
