Dismissed petition with costs to respondent. Petitioners to appear before WTM. No referral to cited judgments.

The court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 payable to respondent No.2 by 25.10.2021. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Whole Time Member (WTM) on the same date without further notice, who would then hear them and issue orders as per the law. The court found no necessity to refer to the judgments cited by both parties as the petitioners' contentions were considered premature.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show cause notices (Annexures-H and H1) dated 09.12.2014.
2. Alleged violation of the previous court order.
3. Alleged malafides in the issuance of notices.
4. Whether the notices constitute parallel proceedings.
5. Petitioners' compliance with regulatory requirements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notices (Annexures-H and H1) dated 09.12.2014:
The petitioners sought to quash the show cause notices on the grounds that these notices were arbitrary and malafide. However, the court clarified that Annexures-H and H1 were not show cause notices but hearing notices. These notices were intended to provide the petitioners an opportunity to adduce evidence and clarifications in support of their contentions. The court emphasized that these notices did not affect any rights of the petitioners and were merely procedural steps to ensure compliance with previous orders and regulatory requirements.

2. Alleged Violation of the Previous Court Order:
The petitioners argued that the issuance of Annexures-H and H1 violated the order of the court in W.P.Nos.9699-9700/2011. The court rejected this contention, noting that the notices were in line with the procedural requirements and aimed at safeguarding the interests of the investors. The court observed that the petitioners had been given ample opportunity to comply with the regulatory requirements and the notices were a continuation of the ongoing regulatory process.

3. Alleged Malafides in the Issuance of Notices:
The petitioners claimed that the notices were issued with malafides. The court found no merit in this argument, stating that the notices were part of the regulatory process initiated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to ensure compliance with the Collective Investment Scheme regulations. The court noted that the petitioners had a history of non-compliance and had been given multiple opportunities to rectify their deficiencies.

4. Whether the Notices Constitute Parallel Proceedings:
The petitioners contended that the issuance of Annexures-H and H1 constituted parallel proceedings, ignoring the previous court order. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the notices were a continuation of the regulatory process initiated by SEBI. The court emphasized that the petitioners had been given multiple opportunities to comply with the regulatory requirements and the notices were aimed at ensuring compliance.

5. Petitioners' Compliance with Regulatory Requirements:
The court highlighted that the petitioners had a long history of non-compliance with the regulatory requirements. Despite being provisionally registered under the SEBI Act to deal in Collective Investment Schemes, the petitioners had failed to obtain permanent registration and had several irregularities in their dealings. The court noted that the petitioners had dragged the matter through various litigations and had not complied with the directions of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) and the Supreme Court. The court concluded that the petitioners' actions were aimed at avoiding compliance with the regulatory requirements and delaying the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 payable to respondent No.2 on or before 25.10.2021. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Whole Time Member (WTM) on 25.10.2021 without any further notice. The WTM was instructed to hear the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with the law. The court found no need to refer to the judgments cited by both parties as the petitioners' contentions were deemed premature.

---