- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. These three writ petitions are preferred by the same petitioners company operating their branch offices in three different districts, namely, Deoghar, Sahebganj and Godda, whose business premises have been subjected to sealing by the State Authorities, which has been impugned in the present writ application. It is the contention of the petitioners that the impugned action of the respondents authorities of Government of Jharkhand is without any authority of law and as such the impugned action is liable to be quashed leading to unsealing of the business premises of the petitioners company. It is, however, disclosed on behalf of the petitioners that Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) vide an order dated 3rd May, 2011, had directed the petitioners company to wind up their operation and ensure return of the investors' money within a period of 3 months. Admittedly, the petitioners have not able to return the investors money by now. In the meantime, the petitioners' business premises have been sealed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the final order dated 3rd May, 2011 of the SEBI, which has been brought on record, is under challenge in Kolkatta High Court in W.P. NO. 12920(W) of 2011. However, learned counsel for the S.EB.I submits that there is no interim protection granted to the petitioners in the said case and SEBI is fully entitled to take all steps as are available under the Act of 1992.
(2.) SECURITIES and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has appeared on notice through learned senior counsel, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Abhisekh Kumar Sinha. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the SEBI has vehemently submitted that the writ petitions should be dismissed at the outset as the petitioners have not come with clean hands and are in admitted breach of the final orders of the S.E.B.I directing them to wind up their operations and ensure return of the investors' money within stipulated time which has elapsed much long ago. It is further submitted that the S.E.B.I under the Act of 1992, has the authority and jurisdiction to undertake proper recourses available in law for refund of the investors money. It can adopt such means as are available under the Act of 1992 in respect of such companies like the petitioners which has failed to conform to the provisions of the Act of 1992 while accepting deposits of the investors. He further submits that therefore the petitioners should be subjected to the jurisdiction of the SEBI and it will be open to the SEBI to take such steps as are available in law. Learned counsel for the Respondents State, on the other hand, submits that the impugned actions have been taken only to ensure protection of the interest of investors, who admittedly appeared to have been duped by the petitioners and their money was not being returned in spite of the direction of the SEBI. He also submits that there is an F.I.R. registered at Godda in respect of the petitioners' Branch Office at Godda with an allegation that they are still in business despite the orders of S.E.B.I. However, learned counsel for the Respondents State submits that the petitioners are required to be subjected to the jurisdiction of the SEBI and S.E.BI is entitled to take any action which are permissible in law under the Act of 1992 for ensuring the protection of the investors money and also for winding up operation of the business of such a company which is apparently operating in breach of the SEBI direction. He also submits that the SEBI in such circumstance after examining the petitioners' case may permit it to return investors money by opening its business premises, if so necessary or may also take any other steps in accordance with law. 3 In these circumstances and the facts recorded hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the present cases. The petitioners are directed to appear and cooperate before the S.E.B.I in respect of any proceedings which are to be undertaken by the SEBI under the Act of 1992 in compliance of the final orders passed by the SEBI earlier.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.;