AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the amendment of the writ petition, as prayed for, be allowed as it is necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case, to which Sri R.N.Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the SEBI has no objection.
The application for amendment (C.M.A.No.6811 of 2011) is accordingly allowed. Let the amendments be incorporated during the course of the day. Reply, if any to be filed, may be filed during the course of hearing of the case.
Sri R.N.Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the SEBI has strongly urged that the interim order granted by this Court be vacated and the SEBI be given liberty to proceed with the enquiry and pass final orders. He says that despite the information regarding the details of the investors with their names, amounts invested and other particulars having been asked for as far back as on 12.5.2010, on one pretext or the other, the said information has not been provided till date despite the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition and thereafter by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition, where Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners had agreed before the Court that whatever information is sought for by the SEBI during enquiry, that would be furnished by the petitioners.
Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners reiterated that whatever information, which could be given, has already been given to the Registrar of the Companies and also to the SEBI. He further says that it is not possible to give information regarding the investors, as asked for, as it will take some more time.
A further argument has been raised by Sri Prashant Chandra that in the Supreme Court''s order, no time-limit has been given for furnishing information to the SEBI. He further says that the Supreme Court has directed the matter to be heard expeditiously and for that matter, the petition be heard and disposed of finally.
We have considered the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
We find that the Supreme Court, in its order dated 4.1.2011 has specifically directed that SEBI would also be entitled to call for any information which it deems fit, including the names of the investors who have invested in OFCD in the course of the inquiry. Mr. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had agreed to give information that SEBI would call upon them to furnish, during inquiry. Since SEBI has been allowed to continue with the enquiry under the orders of the Court and it being the direction of the Apex Court for the petitioners to furnish information as asked for by the SEBI and to which, the counsel for the petitioner had also agreed and had given a statement before the Court, we do not find any reason as to why the information, as asked for, is not being given by the petitioners to the SEBI.
The plea of the petitioners that the Supreme Court has not fixed any time-limit for giving information to the SEBI, is a plea which deserves to be rejected out-rightly and the same is rejected. The information ought to have been given within a reasonable time and that too during the course of enquiry, which is being conducted by SEBI so that the orders passed by the Supreme Court and the statement given by the counsel for the petitioners before it stand honoured. The argument is baseless.
Sri R.N.Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the SEBI has drawn the attention of the Court towards the letter dated 1.2.2011 written by the BDO Consulting Pvt. Ltd. to the petitioners, who appears to have been approached by the petitioners for collating, correcting and compiling the data after due authentication, wherein it has been stated that approximately 50% of the relevant data is on the computers and rest 50% is in physical form. His submission is that this 50% data with respect to the investors, which is available on computers, can be given by the petitioners immediately to the SEBI.
The conduct of the petitioners, by not giving the required information, regarding the investors, despite the orders of the Court and their agreement cannot be appreciated.
Considering the pleas from both the sides, we, as last opportunity, provide two weeks'' time to the petitioners to furnish the information regarding investors to the SEBI, as more than sufficient time has already lapsed, failing which the interim order shall be liable to be vacated.
An apprehension has been expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case they give information regarding investors, the SEBI would misuse it, to which Sri R.N.Trivedi assures that the SEBI is not interested in doing any such act and that the same is required only for the purposes of enquiry. He further says that the information so furnished shall not be misused.
Arguments of petitioners on merits of the case have started. List this matter for further hearing on 9.3.2011 at 2 O''clock.