Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.67 seconds)M/S. Mutha Associates & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 July, 2013
15. Reliance placed by the appellants on the decision of the Apex
Court in case of Mutha Associates (Supra) is misplaced. In that case,
land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government for the
benefit of APMC were sought to be withdrawn without giving an
opportunity of hearing to APMC. On facts of that case, the High Court
while holding that the withdrawal of the acquisition without giving an
opportunity of hearing to APMC was bad in law held that the order
passed by the Minister withdrawing the acquisition was actuated by
malafides. In that context, while upholding the decision of the High
Court that the withdrawal of the acquisition was bad in law, the Apex
Court held that when the charge of malafides was levelled against the
Minister, it was mandatory to implead the Minister as a party to the
proceedings and give an opportunity to refute the charge against the
Minister. As no such opportunity was given, the charge against the
Minister was set aside. In the present case, the appellants were called
upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the
appellant for committing fraud on investors and opportunity of hearing
was granted to the appellants. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court
in case of Mutha Associates has no bearing on the facts of present case.
J. Jose Dhanapaul vs S. Thomas & Ors on 16 February, 1996
In support of the above contentions counsel for
appellants placed reliance on the decisions of the
Apex Court in case of Mutha Associates & Ors. vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2013) 14
SCC 304, Manohar Joshi vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil &
Anr. reported in (1996) 1 SCC 169, J. Jose Dhanapaul
vs. S. Thomas & Ors. reported in (1996) 3 SCC 587,
decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P.
Vinmani vs. The General Manager, SBI reported in
2011 (2) CTC 260 and Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vs. The
custodian & Ors. reported in 2004 (2) All MR 491.
M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998
In support of the above
submission reliance is placed on the decisions of the
Apex Court in case of Mutha & Associates vs. State
of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 14 SCC 304 &
M.S. Bindra vs. Union of India reported in (1998) 7
SCC 310.
Section 17 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bpl Limited vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India on 20 June, 2002
17. Strong reliance was placed by counsel for the appellants on the
decision of this Tribunal in case of BPL Ltd. (Supra). That decision is
31
also distinguishable on facts. In that case, SEBI had held that BPL Ltd.
had created a false market and manipulated the price of its scrip in
connivance with Shri Harshad Mehta and accordingly debarred BPL Ltd.
from accessing the securities market for a period of four years. This
Tribunal noticed that nowhere in the order impugned therein it was
recorded that BPL Ltd. had transacted in its shares either directly or
indirectly. It was further noticed, that BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. ("BSFL"
for short) an associate company of BPL Ltd. was found to be involved in
the matter. Since BSFL was not investigated and since no action was
taken against BSFL, this Tribunal held that the said omission has
materially affected the outcome of the investigation and accordingly set
aside the debarment order passed against BPL Ltd. In the present case, it
is the case of SEBI that the appellants by their acts have committed fraud
on the investors in India and accordingly action is taken against the
appellants. Thus, the decision of this Tribunal in case of BPL Ltd. has no
bearing on the present case. Accordingly, we see no merit in the
contention of the appellants that SEBI could not have proceeded against
the appellants without impleading the entities involved in issuing t he
GDRs or the entities involved in the Loan Agreement/ Pledge
Agreement.
Manohar Joshi vs Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr on 11 December, 1995
16. Similarly, decision of the Apex Court in case of Manohar Joshi
(Supra) is distinguishable on facts. In that case, in an Election Petition,
the returned candidate was alleged to be guilty of a corrupt practice in the
commission of which another person was alleged to have participated
with him. In that context it was held that the returned candidate can be
held vicariously liable for a corrupt practice committed by any other
person with his consent only at the end of the trial i.e. after the trial
against the returned candidate and trial against the other person with
whose consent the returned candidate had committed the corrupt practice.
P. Vinmani vs The General Manager on 14 February, 2011
In support of the above contentions counsel for
appellants placed reliance on the decisions of the
Apex Court in case of Mutha Associates & Ors. vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2013) 14
SCC 304, Manohar Joshi vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil &
Anr. reported in (1996) 1 SCC 169, J. Jose Dhanapaul
vs. S. Thomas & Ors. reported in (1996) 3 SCC 587,
decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P.
Vinmani vs. The General Manager, SBI reported in
2011 (2) CTC 260 and Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vs. The
custodian & Ors. reported in 2004 (2) All MR 491.
1