- (1.) IA No. 1 of 2004 (Application for impleadment) is allowed. We have heard Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel and Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Harish Salve, Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Vivek Tankha, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi and Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondents.
(2.) IN the course of his submissions Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the first Respondent contended that had the Appellant issued necessary show cause notice before the passing of the orders dated 30.11.1999 and 10.12.1999, the first Respondent would have placed the necessary materials and demonstrated as to how its business activities would not have fall under the definition of Collective Investment Schemes and there would have been no necessity to approach the High Court for the redressal of its grievances. The learned senior counsel also submitted that even now if the said orders dated 30.11.1999 and 10.12.1999 are treated as show cause notices and appropriate opportunity is extended to the first Respondent that would enable the first Respondent to vindicate its stand before the Appellant. After hearing the respective counsel and after noticing the orders dated 30.11.1999 and 10.12.1999 impugned in the writ petition filed before the High Court, which were set aside by the order impugned in these appeals, as well as, the order dated 24.6.2002 which order also got merged in the order impugned in these appeals, it was suggested to the learned Counsel whether the impugned orders of the Appellant dated 30.11.1999 and 10.12.1999 themselves can be treated as show cause notices and an opportunity to be extended afresh to the first Respondent company before passing final orders on the question as to whether or not the business of the first Respondent company will fall within the category of Collective Investment Scheme (hereinafter being referred to as "CIS"). Further, depending upon the outcome of any such fresh orders to be passed by the Appellant, further proceedings can be initiated by the Appellant in accordance with law.
(3.) TO the above suggestion, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondents readily agreed. learned Counsels appearing for the Appellant however, submitted that the Appellant should have full cooperation from the first Respondent Company, that Appellant should be in a position to make an inspection, investigation, and inquiry of the first Respondent Company, that it should have access to the verification of the records with the assistance of Auditors and only thereafter, the Appellant would be in a position to issue any comprehensive show cause notice supplementing the proceedings dated 30.11.1999 and 10.12.1999. learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the first Respondent Company should furnish the address and details of the persons as Nodal Officers who can be addressed while issuing any fresh proceedings by way of supplementary show cause notice in order to enable the Appellant to carry out the above exercise. learned Counsel submitted that the Appellant would require not less than three months' time to carry out the exercise and issue the supplementary show cause notice. Further, though learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the first Respondent Company should be restrained from mobilising any fresh records, it was made clear that such a blanket prohibition cannot be issued, instead in the event of mobilisation of any fresh funds, the first Respondent company would furnish the details of those transactions also to the Appellant when the Appellant proceed to hear the first Respondent Company and before passing any fresh orders.;