1. Heard Mr. Sunit Shah, learned counsel with Mr.N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate for respondent No.1, Securities Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short), Mr.Kavina, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Shah, learned advocate for respondents No.2 and 4 and Mr.Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate for respondent No.3 Bank of Baroda.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition for below mentioned relief:
"7(b) direct the respondent no.1-SEBI to hold inquiry, if necessary, (which in the humble opinion of the petitioner is not necessary in view of the admitted and undisputed position of the unauthorised debit from the petitioner's account) and pass appropriate direction against the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, as the case may be, for reimbursement and payment of Rs.1,89,000/= with interest with effect from 18.03.2011 and upon such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case;
7(c) direct the respondent no.3-Bank of Baroda to not debit the petitioner's Over Draft Account with any further interest;
7(d) declare that the respondent no.3-Bank of Baroda was not supposed to charge any interest on Rs.1,89,000/= in view of the withdrawal of the application by the petitioner; and accordingly the respondent no.3-Bank of Baroda shall give effect into the account;"
3. The respondents have filed their respective reply-affidavits.
4. The dispute raised by the petitioner is such which can be adjudicated and decided by respondent No.1 in exercise of powers conferred on the respondent No.1 under provisions of the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 and SEBI (Registrars an issue & Share Transfer Agents) Rules, 1993 as well as circular bearing No.SEBI/CFD/DIL/ASBA/1/2009/30/12 dated 30.12.2009 issued by SEBI. According to the provisions under the SEBI Act, appeal against the decision of SEBI is also provided.
5. In view of the fact that there is complete hierarchy of alternative remedy available to the petitioner, present petition does not deserve to be entertained, more so in view of the fact that the petitioner has already filed an application-complaint dated 25.6.2011 before the respondent No.1.
6. The petitioner is relegated to the respondent No.1 being the competent authority under provisions of the Act to decide the controversy raised by the petitioner.
7. Therefore, present petition is disposed of with below mentioned observations.
8. Respondent No.1 will take into consideration the application/complaint dated 25.6.2011 (Annexure-O & Annexure-P, pages 75 to 77) submitted by the petitioner before it, as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months, after hearing the petitioner and other concerned parties.
9. The decision shall be conveyed to the petitioner and thereafter it will be open to the petitioner, if it is aggrieved by the decision, to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions under the Act.
In the aforesaid clarification, the petition is disposed of.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top