Contempt petition filed under section 11 of  Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 barred – Madras high court
Contempt petition filed under section 11 of  Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 barred – Madras high court The petitioners filed a contempt petition praying to initiate contempt proceedings against contemnors 1 and 2 and to punish them for deliberately misleading the Court to pass the orders in W.P.(MD)No.8037 of 2020. The petitioner was heard and closed by a single judge bench of THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN in the case of Mahasemam Trust versus Rohit Karanth Sawhney and Anr. ( Cont. P(MD)No.442 of 2021 in W.P(MD)No.8037 of 2020) The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.8037 of 2020 challenging and downgrading of their rating by  India Rating and Research Private Limited and the court dismissed the petition as non -maintainable and it was made clear that the petitioner has the liberty to avail in-house remedy available or move to Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) directly by filing a complaint against the Rating Agency. The petitioner questioned this order by filing  S.L.P. No.15116 of 2020 and the same was dismissed the supreme court also made it clear that the petitioner may seek the remedy as stated by the high court. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the Rating Agency before SEBI and the SEBI took the stand that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner will have to move to the Reserve Bank of India according to petitioner the reserve bank of India issued circulars have been violated. The petitioner unsatisfied with the decision files the present petition before the court. The court rejected the SEBI stand on that they do not have jurisdiction on the matter and the court directed to pass an order on merits and made it clear that the issue of maintainability shall not be reopened. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner faulted the conduct of the authority and submitted that even though this Court in its earlier order had specifically foreclosed the issue of maintainability, the official had chosen to seek clarification once again from the Reserve Bank of India and placed reliance on the case of  (2017) 5 SCC 517 (National Securities Depositor Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India) and submits that the SEBI has dismissed the application without going in the merits of the case. The court after hearing all the arguments find that the said submissions are not satisfactory and as pointed by the learned counsel that the SEBI has passed the order only on the matters of the case and the official not referred to the reserve bank of India still a careful reading indicates that the RBI has not dictated in the matter and the order has been given with independent application of mind and if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision the remedies available under the law can be used and the court closes the contempt petition.
Cont. P(MD)No.4421BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 14.06.2021CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHANCont. P(MD)No.4421inW.P(MD)No.80320Mahasemam Trust A Public Trust Rep. by its Trustee Dr.Prabu Vairavan Prakasam Having its registered office at 519 16th Street Karpaga Nagar K.Pudur Madurai 625 007. ... PetitionerVs.1.Rohit Karanth Sawhney S o.Vinod Prakash Sawhney Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer India Rating & Research Pvt. Ltd. Having Office at Wokhardt Towers 4th Floor West Wing Bhandra East Mumbai 400 051.2.Rohan Shukla Assistant Manager Division of Policy & InspectionMarket Intermediaries Regulation & Supervision Dept.Securities and Exchange Board of India 1 6 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis Cont. P(MD)No.4421 SEBI Bhavan Plot No.C4 A G Block Bandra Kurla Complex BandraMumbai 400 051. ... RespondentPrayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the contemnors 1 and 2 and punish them for willfully and deliberately misleading the Court in passing the orders in W.P.(MD)No.80320 dated 12.10.2020.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Subramanian Senior CounselFor Respondents : Mr.Aravind P.Datar Senior Counsel for Mr.V.M.Sivakumar Standing Counsel for SEBIO R D E RHeard the learned Senior Counsel on either side.2.The petitioner herein filed W.P.(MD)No.80320 challenging the downgrading of their rating by India Rating and Research Private Limited. By order dated 12.10.2020 the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. However it was made clear that the 2 6 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis Cont. P(MD)No.4421writ petitioner was at liberty to avail the in house remedy available to them or move Securities and Exchange Board of Indiadirectly by filing a complaint against the Rating Agency. It was further observed that whatever remedy that the petitioner may avail the same shall be attended to with utmost expedition. Questioning this order the petitioner herein moved the Hon ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. No.151120. Vide order dated 18.12.2020 the Hon ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP and made it clear that the petitioner may seek his remedy as observed by the High Court in Paragraph No.18 of the Judgment. 3.Thereupon the petitioner filed a complaint against the Rating Agency before SEBI. SEBI took the stand that the complaint is not maintainable before them and that the petitioner will have to move the Reserve Bank of India as according to the petitioner the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India have been violated. Not satisfied with the stand taken by SEBI the present contempt petition came to be filed before me.3 6 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis Cont. P(MD)No.44214.Vide order dated 29.04.2021 I rejected the stand of SEBI that they do not have jurisdiction in the matter. I directed them to pass an order on merits. I made it clear that the issue of maintainability shall not be reopened. The contempt petition has been posted for compliance today. The official who had disposed of the complaint vide order dated 04.06.2021 is present before this Court through video conference mode. 5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for SEBI informed the Court that the order passed by this Court has been complied with.6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner faulted the conduct of the authority who passed the order dated 04.06.2021. He submitted that even though this Court in its earlier order had specifically foreclosed the issue of maintainability the official had chosen to once again seek clarification from the Reserve Bank of India. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court reported in5 SCC 517for the proposition that the proceedings are quasi judicial in character and that 4 6 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis Cont. P(MD)No.4421therefore the authority will have to independently decide the issue and could not have been dictated by any other authority or agency or institution. He pointedly contended that SEBI has not at all gone into the merits of the complaint. 7.I am not satisfied with the said submission. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for SEBI the order dated 04.06.2021 has been passed only on the merits of the matter. Even though the official need not have referred to the Reserve Bank of India still a careful reading of the order indicates that they have not been dictated to by the Reserve Bank of India. The order has been passed after an independent application of mind. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedies open to them under law. I consciously refrain from entering into the merits of the matter. By passing the order dated 04.06.2021 I am satisfied that the direction issued by this Court has been complied with in letter and spirit. 5 6 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis Cont. P(MD)No.4421 G.R.SWAMINATHAN J.rmi8. The contempt petition stands closed. 14.06.2021Index: Yes NoInternet: Yes NormiNOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID 19 pandemic a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes but ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy shall be the responsibility of the advocate litigant concerned.. Cont. P(MD)No.4421inW.P(MD)No.8032014.06.20216 6 