ARSHDEEP FINANCE LTD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant cases, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies -cum -Official Liquidator, Bihar & Jharkhand, National Capital Territory of Delhi & Haryana, the Securities and Exchange Board of India as well as RBI has also appeared.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the RBI, however, submits that he has appeared in W.P. (C) No. 1196 of 2013. However, learned counsel for the RBI is directed to appear in all these matters. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall supply copy of the pleadings upon the learned counsel for the RBI, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai by Monday and necessary corrections be carried out in respective writ petitions by learned counsel for the petitioners to implead the RBI through its Regional Director, Regional Office, Patna, in all such petitions, in which it is not already a party. The common grievance, in these writ petitions, raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the Respondents -District Authorities of the Government of Jharkhand have sealed the business premises of these petitioners without any authority of law. These petitioners have claimed that they are carrying out their business on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding and registration with the respective Registrar of Companies at different places. It is further contention that they have not violated any law and no notice or opportunity was given to them before taking the impugned action. Learned counsel for the Respondents -State, however, in the respective writ petitions, has submitted that these petitioners were indulging in acceptance of deposits or investments from small time and others investors without complying with the provisions of SEBI Act as also the RBI Act and the regulations/guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, as most of them are Non -Banking Finance Companies. Learned counsel for the Respondents -State submits that these companies were given notices to answer specific queries which they failed to do within the time stipulated and therefore to protect the interest of the investors, the respondents had to undertake the exercise of sealing the business premises. It is submitted that in some of the cases, criminal cases have also been filed against the concerned Companies and its Directors. It is further submitted that the report to that effect has also been sent to RBI and SEBI. When these matters were taken up earlier, this Court directed the petitioners to implead the Securities and Exchange Board of India. The RBI, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Registrar of Companies -cum -Official Liquidator as it appeared to this Court that they are necessary and proper parties in the present proceedings. Pursuant to notices issued as aforesaid the newly added respondents have appeared through their respective counsels. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the SEBI submits that they are in the process of inquiry into the affairs of different companies like the petitioners. Learned senior counsel for the SEBI submits that some of these petitioners have been given notice, but they are not yet co -operating in proper manner that's why the inquiry is being delayed.

(3.) LEARNED ASGI, Mr. Khan appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Registrar of Companies -cum - Official Liquidator submits that the respondents are also in the process of inquiring into the affairs of the said Companies, for which time is required.