Phiroze Sethna Pvt. Ltd., Jost'S Vs. Adjudicating Officer, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....file their further reply, if any, before the adjudicating officer within two weeks from today. the adjudicating officer will then proceed in the matter and pass a final order within four weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. it goes without saying that in case the order goes against the appellants, it would be open to them to challenge the same in accordance with law. there is no order as to costs.3. before parting we may mention that while admitting the appeal on september 2, 2005 this tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a sum of rs. 10 lakhs in all and the respondent was directed not to take any coercive steps against the appellant for the recovery of the balance.in pursuance to that order the appellants deposited a sum of rs. 10 laks with the respondent which amount was put in a fixed deposit. now that the appeal has been disposed of as infructuous, the respondent is directed to refund the said amount to the appellants with interest that has accrued on the fixed deposit.

Judgment:

1. This Tribunal by its order dated 13.12.2005 directed the respondent to file an affidavit stating whether Halidon Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the transferee held shares in the target company for a period of three years and whether the three year period in the opinion of SEBI was necessary to claim exemption under the proviso to Regulation 3(1)(e)(iii)(b). In compliance of this order the respondent is ready with an affidavit to be filed in court today. The learned Solicitor General however, states that the respondent is withdrawing the impugned order and, therefore, it may not be necessary to file the affidavit. He further submits that the respondent will proceed with the show cause notice afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants enabling them to place whatever further material they want to place on record in support of their claim and after examining the entire material on record, the adjudicating officer shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In view of this statement nothing survives in the appeal and the same is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the adjudicating officer to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants points out that the appellants nos. 3 and 4 are senior citizens and that one of them is 82 years of age and that it would be in the interest of justice if the adjudicating officer is directed to expedite the matter and pass the final order at the earliest. Having regard to the age of appellants nos. 3 and 4 we direct that the appellants may file their further reply, if any, before the adjudicating officer within two weeks from today. The adjudicating officer will then proceed in the matter and pass a final order within four weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. It goes without saying that in case the order goes against the appellants, it would be open to them to challenge the same in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs.

3. Before parting we may mention that while admitting the appeal on September 2, 2005 this Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in all and the respondent was directed not to take any coercive steps against the appellant for the recovery of the balance.

In pursuance to that order the appellants deposited a sum of Rs. 10 laks with the respondent which amount was put in a fixed deposit. Now that the appeal has been disposed of as infructuous, the respondent is directed to refund the said amount to the appellants with interest that has accrued on the fixed deposit.