2024 (11) TMI 529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....OTION NO. 342 OF 2000 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 273 OF 2002 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 572 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1337 OF 1998 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 5606 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1337 OF 1998 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 576 OF 2016 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 226 OF 1998, CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 478 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 479 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 226 OF 1998 - -<br>Securities / SEBI<br>M.S. SONAK & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner-SEBI: Mr Prathamesh Kamat a/w Mr Kayush Zaiwalla, Mr Omprakash Jhah, Ms Radha Naik i/b. the Law Point,. For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 7-State of Maharashtra: Ms P H Kantharia, G.P. a/w Ms Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P., Mr Abhay Patki, Addl. G.P., Ms Nazia Sheikh, AGP,. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion. Therefore, the existing CIS were permitted to continue until regulations were framed under Section 30 of the SEBI Act for effective implementation of the provisions of Section 11 (2) (c) and 12 (1B) of the SEBI Act. The SEBI did issue some press releases just before and after the institution of this petition. 5. Disclosures regarding the first respondent Company revealed that it floated 18 schemes, each maturing after about 15 years. The company collected approximately Rs.16,01,81,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Crores, One Lakh, and Eighty One Thousand only) through these 18 schemes. The SEBI sought specific reliefs concerning the first respondent because it was found that the promoters and directors absconded after collecting a vast amount t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns already address the situation highlighted in it. They suggested that Company Petition No. 226/1998 be detagged from this petition so that the Company Court could consider it applying the well-settled principles under Company Law and the 1999 regulations. 9. We see no difficulty in accepting the above suggestion. Now that the main petition can be disposed of, it would not be appropriate for this Court to continue with the proceedings in the Company Petition. Instead, it would be appropriate if the Company Petition is detagged and the Company Court considers the same. This would include consideration of the various reports made by the Liquidator from time to time considering the affairs of the first respondent Company (in winding up). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... first respondent Company. One of the auditors submitted its report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. However, no inquiry report has been filed as directed in our order dated 16.06.1998. Therefore, this direction should be complied with within eight weeks of today by filing the inquiry report before the Company Court in company petition no. 226/1998. 14. The Official Liquidator oversees respondents nos.1 to 5 and 7 properties. He should take steps in the best interest of the investors, make reports to the Company Court, and hereafter act under the orders and guidance of the Company Court. The issue of attachment, sale, etc., of the assets of respondents nos.1 to 5 and 7 will now be considered by the Company Court in Company Petition ....