Delhi High Court
M/S Indus Valley Estates & Farms ... vs Secretaries & Exchange Board Of ... on 2 June, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. Revision Petition No.0313/2010
Date of decision: 02.06.2010
M/s Indus Valley Estates & Farms .... Revisionist
Ltd.
Through Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
Secretaries & Exchange Board of .... Respondents
India (SEBI) & another
Through Mr.Sanjay Maan, Advocate for respondent
No.1
Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
Anil Kumar, J.
*
The revisionist has challenged the order dated 6th May, 2010
passed in C.C.No.02 of 2009, titled as 'Securities & Exchange Board of
India (SEBI) & another v. M/s 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) & another.
Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint under Section 24 (1) & 27
of the SEBI Act, 1992 against the revisionist and another alleging
violation of the directions given by respondent No.1 vide Notification
dated 7th December, 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 4th August, 2007. While the report had
been exhibited as Ex-CW-3/D on 4th August, 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 4th August, 2007.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to give
any satisfactory reason as to why auditor was not summoned for 4th
August, 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 4th August, 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 4th August, 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 & 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.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
JUNE 02, 2010
VK
