2012 (12) TMI 1253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e provision. Every civil court should be aware of the judgment reported at (T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal AIR 1977 SC 2421) that instructs that a court should assess a plaint on a meaningful - not a formal - reading thereof to ascertain the true substance of the claim. 2. The trial judge in this case has fallen woefully short of the duty that was cast on him by law. 3. Two of the defendants in the fanciful suit complain of the mechanical application of Order VII Rule 11 by the trial court and the rejection of the petitioners' application under that provision. The petitioners refer to Section 20A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 to say that the jurisdiction of a civil court to receive a matter covered by s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... good. The plaint avers that the plaintiff would dutifully deposit the money collected from less privileged depositors into a collective investment scheme operated by the first defendant. The first defendant employer, the plaint says, is authorised by its memorandum of association to invest in teak bonds, agro bonds and like investments. The first defendant apparently sought permission from the SEBI to continue the collective investment scheme and was granted a conditional licence. Several paragraphs of the plaint speak of all the requirements having been met by the first defendant save the key condition. The plaintiff makes out a case that his life and livelihood are at stake and if the business of the first defendant is affected by any or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing to be seen through and appropriately dealt with. So that there is no further suspense, it must immediately be said that no intelligent reader would mistake the plaint for anything but a vicarious complaint made by one on behalf of another. It is a claim made by the first defendant using an employee as its mouthpiece. The plaintiff cannot have the remotest cause of action against SEBI or the orders passed by it in exercise of its authority under the 1992 Act. It is also necessary to see the nature of the first of the two orders which are assailed in the suit. In the order of May 11, 2012, the SEBI narrated the entire history of the first defendant company illegally continuing its collective investment scheme, of the first defendant....