AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar, J.—The revisionist has challenged the order dated 6-5-2010 passed in C.C. No. 2 of 2009, titled as ''Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) v. Indus Valley Estates & Farms Ltd. rejecting the application moved on behalf of the petitioner/accused No. 1 for summoning the witness in respect of audit carried out by the auditor of the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and another.
Respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint under Sections 24(1) and 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992 against the revisionist and another alleging violation of the directions given by respondent No. 1 vide Notification dated 7-12-2000, directing the revisionist to refund the money collected under the Collective Investment Scheme, within a period of one month.
On the alleged failure of the revisionist to comply with the direction of respondent No. 1, the said complaint was filed against the revisionist and others Directors.
During the pendency of the complaint, the evidence of the parties was recorded, and the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) respondent No. 1 filed the audit report which was exhibited as Ex-CW-3/D along other documents on 4-8-2007. While the report had been exhibited as Ex-CW-3/D on 4-8-2007, the revisionist had not reserved any right to further summon for cross-examination any witness in respect of the said report.
The revisionist, thereafter, belatedly filed an application to summon the auditor which was contested by the respondent No. 1 contending, inter alia, that the request of the revisionist is not only belated, but it has been filed with a view to delay the proceedings, especially in view of the fact that sufficient opportunities had been offered to the revisionist for leading his evidence.
The trial court after considering the pleas and contentions of the parties, has held that the revisionist had ample opportunity to summon the auditor to show his plea in respect of the report, which had been exhibited as Ex-CW-3/D on 4-8-2007.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist has not been able to give any satisfactory reason as to why auditor was not summoned for 4-8-2007 when the report was exhibited as Ex-CW-3/D, or soon thereafter. Learned Counsel for the revisionist is also unable to show as to how many times after 4-8-2007, matter was adjourned and why no steps were taken by the revisionist to summon the auditor.
In any case the report was exhibited as Ex-CW-3/D along with other documents on 4-8-2007, and opportunity was not reserved by the revisionist to further cross-examine any other witness in respect of the said report, nor it has been shown that any objection was taken regarding exhibition of the said documents.
In the circumstances, the dismissal of the application for summoning the auditor of the report, which was exhibited as Ex-CW-3/D on 4-8-2007 is apparently belated and there is no reasons disclosed by the revisionist for not summoning the said auditor earlier.
In the circumstances, the dismissal of the application of the revisionist on the ground that it was belated does not suffer from any such illegality, irregularity and jurisdictional error, which will require any correction or interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional power. The revision petition in the facts and circumstances, is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.