The Gujarat High Court quashed the recovery notice and remitted the matter to the Authority to give an opportunity of hearing to determine the amount to be paid to depositors.
Mr. S. N. Soparkar, the Senior Counsel, the advocate appearing for the writ-applicants, Golden Trees Plantation Ltd. vehemently submitted that the impugned notice has been issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicants. Mr. Soparkar would submit that a huge amount to the tune of Rs.1,068,64,56,000/- is sought to be recovered from the writ-applicants. The principal argument of Mr. Soparkar is that on what basis the Recovery Officer has arrived at such a mammoth figure is not understood.
Mr. Soparkar submitted that his clients have deposited a substantial amount so far in due compliance with the order passed by the SEBI dated 14.3.2003. Mr. Soparkar pointed out that between 2012 and 2018 the writ-applicant No.1 made a total payment of Rs.10,97,50,000/- to various stakeholders. It is further pointed out that the Company has also made payments to the tune of Rs.23,20,900/- to various other stakeholders. Even according to the respondents, the Company had collected an amount not exceeding Rs.9,23,27,000/-, as against that the Company had incurred the total expenditure of Rs.11,40,04,621/- for nurturing and maintenance of saplings/trees and refunded Rs.11,20,70,000/- to various tree holders.
In such circumstances, Mr. Soparkar prays that there being merit in his writ-application the same be allowed and the matter be remitted to the authority concerned with a direction to give an opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicants and thereafter determine an appropriate amount if at all any amount is to be paid by the writ- applicants.
On the other hand, this writ-application has been vehemently opposed by Ms. Dharmishta Raval, the counsel appearing for the respondents on the ground that the writ- applicants have an alternative remedy to prefer an appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal under Section 15(T) of the SEBI Act.
The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Ilesh J.Vora pointed out that in such circumstances relegating the writ- applicants, at this stage, to avail the alternative remedy and challenge the recovery notice by way of an appeal would not serve any good purpose.
Instead, the court quashed the recovery notice and remit the matter to the authority concerned with a direction to give an opportunity of hearing to the writ- applicants and thereafter appropriately determine the amount to be paid to the depositors. Of course, it would be open to the writ-applicants to point out to the authority concerned that as of the date they have discharged their liabilities in toto.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
