Dismissed

M/S. Green Gold Plantation Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Bombay HC22 Feb 2024REVN/509/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision application challenges the order rejecting the discharge of accused persons in a SEBI special court trial for alleged offences under sections 24(i) and 27 of the SEBI Act. The single-judge bench found no illegality in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the revision holding there was no illegality in the impugned order rejecting the discharge application.

M/S. Green Gold Plantation Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

3-REVN-509-510-2017.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA PALLAVI WARGAONKAR MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2024.03.02 16:26:37 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.509 OF 2017

¶4

M/s. Green Gold Plantation Group Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Applicants

¶5

vs.

¶6

Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.510 OF 2017

¶9

M/s. Green Gold Plantation Group Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Applicants

¶10

vs.

¶11

Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents

¶12

¶13

None for the Applicants.

¶14

Mr. Omprakash Jha i/b. The Law Point, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 - SEBI.

¶15

Mr. A.D. Kamkhedkar, APP for Respondent No.3 - State.

¶16

¶17

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 22^nd FEBRUARY 2024

¶18

P. C. :-

¶19

Heard learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 – SEBI.

¶20

The SEBI has filed private complaint before the Court of

¶21

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Now, the case is transferred

¶22

to the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. There are four accused

¶23

persons. One is the Company and 2 to 4 are the Directors. They have

¶24

applied for discharge before the SEBI Special Court. It was rejected on

¶25

1/3

¶26

Pallavi

¶27

3-REVN-509-510-2017.doc

¶28

20^th July 2017 (page 506). The complaint is filed for the offences under Sections 24(i) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short “ SEBI Act ”).

¶29

The Applicants have pleaded (page 488) that majority of the Schemes have been issued to the family members and near relatives. They have further pleaded that they have refunded the amount raised by way of public raise funds to the tune of Rs.29,49,000/- (in Revn/510/2017) (pg.489) and Rs.6,51,500/-(in Revn/509/2017) (pg.489). Whereas, the averments in the complaint are there is a Certificate of Registration by which the Company was registered as per the amendment in Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act. There is a ban on raising of funds unless the Company is registered with the SEBI. The amendment came into force w.e.f. 28^th March 1995. In fact, SEBI has informed to Accused No.1 about the requirements of law. There was also deeming section when this amendment came into force. Existing Collective Investment Scheme were required to make an application for registration with SEBI which was not done by Accused No.1. It is further case of SEBI that documentary evidence is not submitted in support of the averments in the discharge application. They have also

¶30

2/3

¶31

Pallavi

¶32

3-REVN-509-510-2017.doc

¶33

doubted the claim for repayment and the auditor’s report as well as the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. That was plea taken in reply to discharge application. In view of the above, SEBI has opposed the prayer for discharge.

¶34

Learned Judge rejected the application on two grounds:-

¶35

i) One is registration with the SEBI is mandatory and

¶36

ii) Second is if the accused have paid their investors still

¶37

they will have to face the consequences without any impediments.

¶38

In view of the above, I do not think that the grievance raised in the discharge application can be considered at the time of framing of charge. At that stage, the Court has to see whether there is a prima facie material for framing of charge. I find that there is no illegality committed in the impugned order. It is also submitted that now the complainant is about to start with the recording of evidence.

¶39

The Applicants – Accused are at liberty to put forth their case

¶40

when the trial will go on. Hence, there is no merit in the Revision. Hence, disposed of.

¶41

3/3

¶42

Pallavi

M/S. Green Gold Plantation Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Green Gold Plantation Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Mohan Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raju Kant Koli vs Komal Raju Koli

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller vs Shri. Dilip Dattatraya Patil and Ors.

Dheeraj Wadhawan S/O Rajesh Wadhawan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Adn Anr.

Shri Anand Sunil Saraiya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kalpesh Gunaji More Vs State of Maharashtra