Mumbai : SEBI Court Mumbai rejected the contempt case filed against SEBI chairman Madhabi Puri Buch as per para 3 Of SC lalita kumari order . As per Para 3 the Magistrate has to take action against delinquent police officers who fail to take action in cognizable offence.
During the hearing SEBI Judge Shri AA Kulkarni asked petitioner to withdraw the petition or cost will be imposed. The Petitioner said that approaching court is not a crime and cost cannot be imposed if judge is not satisfied with the legal submission of a party . Petitioner also said to the court that as per SC if cost will be imposed to litigants then they will approach goons for justice.
During the hearing judge said that the SEBI provisions are civil in nature and SEBI officers are not police officers. Court refuse to give one day time to counter the objections of SEBI court. Petitioner submitted that 71 MM Court Bandra says that for FIR under 15HA SEBI act 1992 you have to approach SEBI court. Petitioner also give submission that SEBI has power to arrest and seize the property which is equivalent to police . SEBI has passed many circulars with Jharkhand and uttarakhand Police to take action on Dabba trading .
SEBI court did not gave next date for more legal submissions and disposed case . In between hearing he said you made complaint of filing staff in this e filed matter. Petitioner said that filing staff was not aware of e filing guidelines and petitioner only escalated the matter to registrar to guide him as per rules. Then Judge said that you will also do my complaint then I have to give reply on your complaint. Petitioner said that Why I should do your Complaint? I will only exhaust remedy before the law.
It has to be noted that that same court is taking SEBI complaint under CRPC 200 and calling respondents as accused and they are taking bail in their matter. The word Cognizance is used in criminal case so How the offence is civil in nature? SEBI is duty bound to take action on complaint and SEBI officers cannot give premium to any accuse.
Petitioner will file recall of order for the miss carriage of justice .
City Sessions Court, Mumbai
: SEBI MA
: 104849/2024: 19-03-2024
: MHCC02-004683-2024
: 104849/2024: 19-03-2024
: MHCC02-004683-2024
Case Status
Petitioner and Advocate
1) Sapan ShrivastavaRespondent and Advocate
1) Madhabi Puri Buch and Other 12) State Through Cp Mumbai
Acts
| Under Act(s) | Under Section(s) |
|---|---|
| Contempt Of Court Act | 15, |
| Securities and Exchange Board of India Act | - |
Case History |
| Registration Number | Judge | Business on Date | Hearing Date | Purpose of Hearing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100407/2024 | COURT 22 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE | 22-03-2024 | Disposed |
Orders |
| Order Number | Order Date | Order Details |
| 1 | 22-03-2024 | Order | ||
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI,
AT MUMBAI
SEBI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 407 OF 2024
Sapan Shrivastava
Age : 47 years, Occ. : Media reporter (Legal)
R/at : D 102, Natraj Darshan,
Ganesh Nagar Chowk,
Dombivali West, Thane ... Applicant
Vs.
1. Madhabi Puri Buch
Age : 55 years, Occ.: Public Servant
SEBI, BKC, Bandra, Mumbai
2. State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
Appearances :-
Applicant in person.
CORAM : H. H. THE SEBI SPECIAL JUDGE,
SHRI A. A. KULKARNI (C.R. NO.22)
DATED : 22nd March, 2024
O R D E R
This application is filed by applicant under Section 15 of
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and prayed for punishment of respondent
no. 1.
2. Heard applicant in person. Perused application and other
documents on record. In brief, it is contention of applicant that
CNR No. MHCC02 - 004683-2024applicant is media reporter and fighting against corruption in various sectors. Respondent No.1 is Officer of SEBI. It is further contention that
Hon’ble Supreme Court passed judgment in Lalita Kumari Vs.
Government of U.P. & Ors on 12.11.2013. It is further contention that,
inspite of complaints about irregularities in IPO of Radhe Developers
(India) Ltd. respondent No.1 failed to initiate any inquiry and
investigation. It is further alleged that, respondent no. 1 willfully
disobeyed directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned
said judgment. It is further contention that respondent No.1 failed to
conduct inquiry and investigation as per Section 15HA of SEBI Act,
1992. SEBI has only authority to investigate case under Section 15HA of
SEBI Act. Further it is contention that respondent No.1 willfully
disobeyed of direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereby
committed contempt and accordingly prayed for taking action against
respondent No.1.
3. In brief, it is contention of applicant that respondent No.1
failed to take cognizance of his complaint for the purpose of conduct
inquiry and investigation in respect of case of Radhe Developers (India)
Ltd. about the IPO by the company. Respondent No.1 failed to take
cognizance of complaint of applicant and committed contempt of Court
by disobeyed direction given in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP & Ors.
Judgment. As per the scheme of Securities and Exchange Board of India
Act 1992, (SEBI Act) Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is
Regulatory Authority of securities market in India. As per Section 26 of
SEBI Act This Court can take cognizance of the complaint only on the
basis of complaint lodged by the SEBI. As per Section 11 of SEBI Act
SEBI, SEBI may initiate to inquiry in the matter whether they have
reasonable grounds to believe about in violation of the SEBI Act and
regulations committed by any entities. Nature of inquire and
investigation under the SEBI act by the SEBI and it’s officers is of civil
nature. Powers under SEBI act given to board for inquiry or
investigation are as per the powers of civil court. In the case of Lalita
Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP & Ors the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is held that,
it is duty of every police officer to register crime when they receive
information about any cognizable offence. As per the scheme of SEBI
Act, SEBI board and its officers do not come under the definition of
police officer for the purpose of inquiry and investigation in view of
provision of SEBI Act. There is no provision to register crime on
receiving any complaint about violation of any provision of SEBI Act
and regulations there under. Therefore, the allegation of applicant on
failure of taking cognizance can not be termed as violation of any
directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt.
of UP & Ors. Hence, I am of the opinion that application filed by the
applicant do not make out case of any contempt of court. Therefore
application filed by the applicant for taking action against respondent
No.1 for contempt of Court is not tenable. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
SEBI Misc. application No. 407 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off
accordingly.
(A. A. Kulkarni)
SEBI Special Judge,
Date : 22.03.2024 City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.22)
Dictated on : 22.03.2024
Transcribed on : 22.03.2024
HHJ signed on : 22.03.2024
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
| Case Type | Filing Number | Filing Date | Registration Number | Registration Date | CNR Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Misc Cases - Miscellaneous Cases | 1496/2023 | 01-09-2023 | 7100190/2023 | 01-09-2023 | MHMM180065592023 |
| First Hearing Date | Decision Date | Case Status | Nature of Disposal | Court Number and Judge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01-September-2023 | 17-January-2024 | Case Disposed | Uncontested - Complaint Returned to the Complainant | 71-METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT |
| Under Act(s) | Under Section(s) |
|---|---|
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | 156 |
| Registration Number | Judge | Business On Date | Hearing Date | Purpose of hearing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 01-09-2023 | 10-10-2023 | Miscellaneous Cases in Afternoon Session |
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 10-10-2023 | 20-10-2023 | FOR ARGUMENT AT 2.45 |
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 20-10-2023 | 23-10-2023 | FOR ORDER |
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 23-10-2023 | 25-10-2023 | FOR ORDER |
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 25-10-2023 | 31-10-2023 | FOR ORDER |
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 31-10-2023 | 10-11-2023 | FOR ORDER |
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 10-11-2023 | 30-11-2023 | FOR ORDER |
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 30-11-2023 | 29-12-2023 | FOR ORDER |
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 29-12-2023 | 15-01-2024 | FOR ORDER |
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 15-01-2024 | 17-01-2024 | FOR ORDER |
| 7100190/2023 | METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 71ST COURT | 17-01-2024 | Disposed |
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
71ST COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
ORDER IN C. C. NO. 190/MISC./2023
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
The complainant Mr. Sapan Shrivastava has filed the present
complaint under section 420, 120 (B), 467, 468, 406, 409 etc. I.P.C. r/w
Sec. 15 HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
According to complainant accused No.1 to No.4 are office bearers of
Trident Ltd. formerly Abhishek Industries Ltd. accused No.5 to No.8 are the
officers of NSE and BSE, accused No.9 to No.11 are public servants. It is
contended that, accused No.1 to No.4 without following the regulation and
circular issued by the SEBI illegally issued IPO and gathered money from
public at large and deceived them.
2. It is further contended that, despite of brought to the notice of
said offence to accused No.5 to No.8 have not taken any action nor the
officers of government have taken action against accused. Further, it is
contended that, accused have indulged in fradulant and unfair trade
practice relating to the security and they are liable for punishment, as per
section 15 HA of the SEBI Act.
3. The complainant in person before the court argued that, the
complainant not also deceived the public at large but to the government
and despite of bring the said commission of offence to the concerned
officers no action have been taken by them, against accused No.1 to No.4.
Therefore he constrained to file the complaint. He further submits that, the
offence is cognizable. The complaint and documents placed on record
shows that, accused have committed cognizable offence. Further, despite
of made complaint to the police no F.I.R. has been registered. He further
C. C. NO. 190/MISC./2023 … 2 … ORDER BELOW EXH.1
submits that, the offence is white collar offence required detail
investigation by police and prayed that the complaint be sent to the police
for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. He also relied on the various citations of which reference have
been made in the complaint. To sum and substance of the said citations is
that, if the complaint discloses the commission of cognizance offence then
the police ought to have registered the F.I.R. Further, those are relating to
that if the complaint discloses to the Magistrate regarding commission of
cognizable offence and despite of the complaint made to police the police
have not registered the F.I.R. In that case the Magistrate can issue direction
to send the matter for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
5. Lastly, complainant Mr. Sapan Shrivastava prayed that,
complaint be sent to police for further investigation under section 156 (3)
of Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Section 15 HA of SEBI Act, provides penalty for fradulant and
unfair trade practices. Section 26 of the Act provides that, no court shall
take cognizance of any offence punishable under this act or any rules or
regulations made there under, save on a complaint made by the Board.
7. Section 26 (B) of the Act provides that, notwithstanding
anything contend in the Cr. P. C. all offences under this Act committed prior
to the date of commencement of Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014
or on or after the date of such commencement shall be taken cognizance
and tried by the special court established for the are in which the offences
committed or where there are more special court than one for such area by
such one of them as may be specified in these behalf by the Hon’ble High
Court concerned.
C. C. NO. 190/MISC./2023 … 3 … ORDER BELOW EXH.1
8. According to the complainant the accused No.1 to No.4
without following the circular dated 18/06/1992 issued the IPO and
gathered money from public, which is anoffence as per the provision of 15
HA of SEBI Act. HOWEVER, section 26 of the Act provide that,the Court
can not take cognizance of the offences except complaint made by the
Board. The complainant in his complaint has not stated that, he is
authorized person from the Board.
9. Section 26 B of the Act provides that, the cognizance of the
offences under SEBI Act can only be taken by the Special Court. Clause 3
of Section 26 A provides that, person shall not be qualified for
appointement of judge of Special Court unless he is immediately before
such appointment, holding the office of Sessions Judge or an Additional
Sessions Judge as the case may be. Therefore, by combing reading of
section 26, 26 A and section 26 B it reveals that, the cognizance of the
alleged offence in complaint can be taken only by the Special Courts.
Therefore, this court cannot take the cognizance of the offence, as alleged
in the complaint. Further, in such circumstances I am of opinion that, the
prayer for investigating the matter under section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C.
cannot be issued. Hence, I am of opinion that, the complaint needs to be
returned to the complainant to file the same in appropriate court of having
jurisdiction. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. The complaint be returned to the complainant to file the same
in appropriate court of having jurisdiction, as per the provision
of section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Place : Bandra, Mumbai.
Date: 17/01/2024.
SRD.
Sd/-
Metropolitan Magistrate,
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai
Comments
Post a Comment