SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 593

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Balasaheb Keshawrao Bhapkar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Securities And Exchange Board of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 546 of 2023
Decided on : 15-07-2024

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajendra Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Shrikant Mishra, Adv. Ms. Arundhati Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Baid, Adv. Mr. Praneet Das, Adv. Mr. Anup Jain, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, Adv. M/s. Expletus Legal, AOR Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Ankita Choudhary, A.A.G. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Deepak Thukral, A.A.G. Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

The court invoked Article 142 to ensure complete justice and constituted HPSC to auction assets and refund investors due to exceptional circumstances and complexities involved.

Headnote:

Liquidation - Companies Act, 1956, SEBI Act, 1992, Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 - Section 11AA of SEBI Act, 1992, Article 142 of the Constitution of India

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, husband, wife, and son, sought directions to liquidate attached assets and disburse proceeds to investors. The companies were involved in illegal mobilization of funds, leading to multiple criminal cases against the petitioners.

Finding of the Court:

The court constituted a High-Powered Sale Committee (HPSC) to auction the assets and refund investors. The court invoked Article 142 to ensure complete justice due to exceptional circumstances.

Issues: Liquidation of attached assets, refund to investors, constitution of HPSC, obligations of petitioners and companies, administrative requirements, remuneration of HPSC members.

Ratio Decidendi: The court invoked Article 142 to constitute HPSC for auctioning assets and refunding investors due to exceptional circumstances and complexities involved.

Final Decision: The court directed the constitution of HPSC, outlined its composition, obligations, and administrative requirements, and ordered interim bail for the petitioners.

ORDER :

Surya Kant, J.

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife, whereas Petitioner No. 3 is their son. They have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the following directions: -

    "(a) To issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any direction or order directing the Respondent No. 1 to liquidate the attached assets within a period of 6 months and/or, in the alternative, allow the Petitioners to assist Respondent No. 1 in liquidating the attached assets;

    (b) Direct Respondent No.1 to distribute the amount lying within it to genuine investors as early as possible;

    (c) Direct Respondent No. 1 to allow the Petitioners to assist them in identifying genuine investors and also the amount deposited by them; and

    (d) Pass other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The above-stated reliefs have been sought in light of the following set of events predicated in this factual background: -

    (a) Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the founder-Directors of one Sai Prasad Properties Ltd, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 3 also joined the aforesaid company as a Director in 2008, allegedly when he was still studying in college, and is claimed to have thereafter resigned in the year 2014. The Petitioners also floated various other companies, known as the Sai Group of Companies, consisting of:

    (i) M/s Sai Prasad Properties Ltd. (hereinafter, "SPPL");

    (ii) M/s Sai Prasad Foods Ltd. (hereinafter, "SPFL");

    (iii) M/s Sai Prasad Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter, "SPCL"); and

    (iv) M/s Shree Sai Space Creations Ltd. (hereinafter, "SSSCL").

    (b) The Security and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter, "SEBI") received a complaint dated 02.06.2010 alleging illegal mobilisation of funds by SPFL. After processing the said complaint and in furtherance of the orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, the Whole Time Member of SEBI (hereinafter, "WTM") issued an interim order-cum-show cause notice dated 17.07.2013, inter alia, directing SPFL and its Directors to refrain from collecting any more money from investors, under the existing schemes or any new schemes. SEBI, once again passed an order dated 14.01.2015 against SPFL and its Promotors/Directors, restraining them from collecting any money from the investors, launching or carrying out any Collective Investment Schemes, and from alienating/disposing/selling any of the assets of the Company, except for the purpose of refund to its investors.

    (c) SEBI received a letter dated 17.08.2012 from the Registrar of Companies, Goa, Daman & Diu informing that upon inspection conducted under Section 209A of the Companies Act, 1956, it was found that SPPL had been accepting investments from their associates for a period of 4 to 9 years and had also been executing joint venture agreements. SEBI was then requested to take appropriate action against SPPL for violating Section 11AA of the SEBI Act, 1992.

    (d) A preliminary enquiry was conducted, and after issuing an interim order-cum-show cause notice dated 17.07.2013, the WTM vide the final order dated 14.01.2015 issued directions against SPPL and its Promotors/Directors, identical to those passed against SPFL (mentioned in paragraph 2(b) above).

    (e) In addition, SEBI received complaints on 23.09.2013 against SPCL and its sister concerns, alleging collection of money from the public, through the Collective Investment Schemes. While these complaints were under investigation, SEBI also received a reference from the Income Tax Department dated 03.03.2014 alleging the collection of money from the public by M/s Sai Prasad Group, to the tune of Rs. 290 crores. WTM once again issued an interim order on 22.07.2014, followed by a final order dated 01.02.2016, directing SPCL and its Directors not to collect any money from the investors or launch or carry out any Collective Inves

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top