Full Text
P.G.F.& ORS. i - „..
Petitioners I
'\V.P/j^,C)1888/2010 plantationsAND RESORTSINDIA LTD
^ i Petitioners : ;
RA^IESHA,WA:STHIAI®ANR Pe,i,io„e„
Appe^anee:Noneforthepetitionersinallmatters. Respondents
VirajR.Dataf,Advocatefortherespondents.
Mr Necraj Malhotra,Sr.AdwK-ate vvUh Mr.Sanjay Mann and Mr Rural
Luthra,Advocatesfor R-3/SEBI.
HON'BLEIVIH.J^ST^ A.K.CHAWLA QRD E R 29.01.2018 fohowipg order was made on 16.11.2009 in
WP.(C}10000/09withcomAectedmatters o , n ■■; ■ ; ■ ■ rage ] of4
2018:DHC:9131-DB "J^Qtice, ^ questionwhicharisesfir
'"""'«>■"petitionis tHmsvhettn '""ft
-t'^i^etimonly c0er commiiM ' ^Magis^^ eft!^pnoceedings by arisesin the backdropofthetwo n/tf ■ ^aestion and 04.12.2604 wherei/ cn!Z ""'fnationsdated01.12.2004 fm. ^ew courtoft
^^ssions Judge Without th u Proceedings, gince this fs the short
V m that the High cLn lnT indicating its stand on the lesTL r interpretation ofthe letter dated 011^200^
Nv. 222 ofthepflper book. The saidamdnv tT^rTT^
^eeks. The learnedcounselappearimfTsmf shortqffidavUAmthin twoweZ. ^^'ofile a within twoutee ^ ifnecessary, be fie short written submissions not ^ theparties shall
R^notifyfordisposalon 18.12.2009 " each.
JUDGMENT
2. The backdrop for the reference was that thp <s Boar^ofIndia,Act, I992<fonahort^tteAc,")providj^ under Section Sd'. Tlie Court desi^ated for the Offences was initially the coutf 7T inferior«othatofJudicial Magishate. ""/ra"''f 2002 (hereafterrcfenedfoas "aritendment") the ' broadly was the court competent to try off amendedretrospectively,0the"CourtofSession-tT' T'' considcmtionon lb->1.2009wasinthecontextofthat' W.P:(C)10000/09withcomectedmatters amendment and the Page2of[4] •• •?'- •••• ■■ t-'V.,. i.. consequential Notifications issued by the High Court on 01.12.2004 enabling the Court of Session to take cognizance of the Notificaiion transferringthe.pending matterstothe CourtofSession.
3. '^^ jssug fefeired in the said order and awak^^ while,is now the subject m^er ofthejudgment ofthe Supreme SEBIV. Classic 2017 SccOnline SC 901.:In this case,the Court held as follows:- ^f^^^:C9nMeration recordedhereinahove,yve are ofthe view,thatthe forum'fortrialearlier vestMin the Court ofMetropolitanMgi0tratefor,JudicialMagistrateofthefirst ddss)w4srep^pspeciivefy inasmuch as, the forum'. V 1 oftrial after 'the 2002Amendment Act' was retrospectively "^^^sedjo th&rCourtcfmsUm.in this vle^ tnqk even in respect ofoffences allegedly committed before 29.10.2002 fthe date with effect from which, 'the 2002AmendmentAct'became operational), whetherin respect "thereof trial had or had not been initiated, would stand J^isdictmd^pestedina CourtofSession.Andtik^ of offences under the SEBI Act, consequent upGn' f^ 2014Amendmmt Act(which became operational with effect fiotn 18.07.2(BS) would stand jurisdictionally transferred fdrpialtpaSpegiaiCcmt,^ ofwhether the offence under the SEBlAct was committed before 29.10.2002 and/or before 18.07.2013 (-the date with effect from which 'the 2014AmendmentAct'became operational), andirrespective of thefact whether trial hador had not been initiated. Ourabove conclusion, affirms the determination recorded by the Delhi High Court in Mahender Singh v. High Court ofDelhi(Writ Petition(C)Nod4i of2007, decided on 11.01.2008), buffip the reasons recorded hereinabove. The impugnedjudgment rendered by the High Court ofBombay in M/s. Classic Credit Ltd. V. State ofMaharashtra(CriminalApplication No.l557of 2007, decided on 16.01.2008), is.liable to be set aside, and is accordingly herebysetaside." WP(Q10000/09withconnectedmatters Page3of[4]; v^' \ ^' r' X:T X X
4. In view ofthe above decision,it is held thatthe"CourtofSession"is competent to entertain and try causes relating to alleged offences under Section 24. It is 5.. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed in the light of the d^clamtipn oflaw made by the Supreme Court in Classic Credit Limited S.RAVINDRABHAT,J JANUARY 29,2018 Ivikast V /,/ n n; nn A.K.CHAWLA,J ^■P (C)10000/09 with connected matters Page 4 of[4]