Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer(Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the inaction on part of the respondent in disposing of appellants application dated November 5, 2004, whereby the appellant had sought listing of the additional shares of the appellant company on the Bombay Stock Exchange. 2. Counsel for the respondent on instruction states that without going into the merits of the case the appeal may be disposed of by directing the appellant to furnish requisite documents within the time specified by this Tribunal and permitting the respondent to pass appropriate order on the application of the appellant within the time stipulated by this Tribunal. Counsel for appellant has no objection. Accordingly we pass the following order:- a) Respondent shall address a letter calling upon the appellant to furnish such additional documents as may be specified within a period of 1 week from today. b) Appellant shall furnish the documents sought for by the respondent within a period of 1 week from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This appeal is filed to challenge order of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) dated May 21, 2014 whereby the bank accounts, demat accounts and lockers of the appellant have been attached to recover amount of Rs.25 lacs payable by the appellant as per adjudication order dated June 28, 2011 which is admittedly upheld by this Tribunal on November 15, 2011. 2. It is not in dispute that after the attachment is levied appellant has paid the amount of `25 lacs belatedly on June 9, 2014. Although payment of Rs.25 lacs is made belatedly, whether SEBI is entitled to recover interest on the said amount of Rs.25 lacs from the date of order till payment is the question which needs consideration. Counsel for the appellant fairly states that all attachment be raised except amount of Rs.4.69 lacs lying in the Joint Saving Bank Account No. 016390100002088 with YES Bank, Juhu Branch which amount may be utilized towards the interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh, Member (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated March 30, 2014 imposing a penalty of Rs.2 for violation of the provisions of Section 15C of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Rs.1 lac under Section 15HB of the Said Act. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and its shares are listed on Bombay Stock Exchange and Ahmadabad Stock Exchange Ltd. Its registered office is in Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. 2. The appellant challenges the impugned order mainly on the ground that it is sick company within the meaning of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 since 2005 and it is under rehabilitation process under the supervision of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The appellant also contends that its poor financial health has not been taken into consideration by the respondent while passing the impugned order. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh, Member (Oral) 1. In these two appeals, the appellant, namely, M/s. Motorol Enterprises Ltd., is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Vadodara (Gujarat). The two appeals have been preferred against impugned orders dated March 25, 2011 and May 9, 2005 imposing a penalty of Rs.20 lac and Rs.5 lac on appellant for violation of provisions of Sections 15C, 15A(a) of SEBI Act, 1992 in appeal no. 59 of 2014 and penalty of Rs.2 lac under Section 15C of SEBI Act in appeal no. 60 of 2014. Two miscellaneous applications no. 42 of 2014 and 43 of 2014 have also been preferred for condonation of delay of 1036 days and 3182 days in the two appeals respectively. Both the learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the question of delay and for the reasons stated in the miscellaneous applications, as well as in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned by allowing two miscellaneous applications in question and consequently both the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This appeal is filed against the order of Adjudicating Officer of Securities and Exchange Board of India dated January 28, 2014 whereby penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been imposed upon the appellant for violating Regulation 8(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (for short SAST Regulations, 1997). 2. Specific grievance of the appellant raised and recorded in the impugned order is that the Delhi Stock Exchange (DSE) on which shares of the appellant company were listed was non-functional since last 13 -14 years. This material aspect of the matter which goes to the root of the matter has not been considered by the Adjudicating Officer. Moreover, during the 13 -14 years whether all other companies listed on the Delhi Stock Exchange were making disclosure under Regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997 has not been considered in the impugned order. 3. In this view of the matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. Whether the Adjudicating Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) by his two orders both dated January 31, 2014 was justified in imposing penalty of Rs.4 lacs on each of the appellant under Section 15A(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (œSEBI Act, 1992? for short) for failure to make disclosures under regulation 7(1A) read with regulation 7(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers ) Regulations, 1997 (œSAST Regulations, 1997? for short) is the question raised in these two appeals. 2. Since facts are common, by consent both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment at the stage of admission. 3. For the sake of convenience we set out relevant facts in Appeal No. 75 of 2014. Counsel for the parties, state that the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 75 of 2014 would...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. Whether the Adjudicating Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for shot) was justified in imposing penalty of ` 3 lacs for alleged violation of regulation 7(1A) read with regulation 7(2) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997 (œSAST Regulations, 1997? for short), penalty of ` 13 lacs for alleged violation of regulation 8(1) and 8(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997 and penalty of Rs.1 lac for alleged violation of regulation 30(2) read with regulation 30(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011 (œSAST Regulations, 2011? for short) is the question raised in this appeal. 2. Counsel for the appellant fairly stated that though the appellant has violated the provisions of SAST Regulations, 1997/SAST Regulations, 2011, in the facts of present case, lenient vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh, Member (Oral) 1. These two appeals have been filed in the context of order dated 24th February, 2012 passed by Respondent SEBI in response to the consent applications moved by the Appellants on 3rd and 4th March, 2011 respectively. Since both the appeals involve an identical question of law and even facts, the learned senior counsel for the parties submit that these can be disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both the learned senior counsel. It is noted that by order dated 24th February, 2012 each of the Appellants was called upon to deposit Rs.25 lacs towards settlement charges on being recommended by the High Powered Committee (HPC) consisting of an Honble retired Judge of High Court alongwith others. It is not disputed that the Appellants duly complied with the order dated 24th February, 2012 immediately by depositing two bank drafts of Rs.25 lac each. The case of the Appellants is that somehow final communication regarding closing the cases in terms of consent circula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) Misc. Application No. 56 of 2014 1. By Miscellaneous Application No. 56 of 2014 applicant seeks condonation of 725 days delay in filing Appeal No. 80 of 2014 wherein orders passed by Whole Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India on September 21, 2011 and April 25, 2012 are challenged. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. 2. Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly. Appeal No. 80 of 2014 1. This appeal is filed to challenge ex-parte ad-interim order passed by the Whole Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) on September 21, 2011 and confirmatory order passed on April 25, 2012 whereby the appellant is inter alia restrained from dealing in securities in any manner whatsoever until further orders. 2. Counsel for the parties state that instead of going into the merits of the case the appeal may be disposed of by directing appellant to file reply to the show ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This Miscellaneous Application is taken out by Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) seeking extension of time for passing the final order by 4 months. By our order dated January 21, 2014 passed in the aforesaid appeal we had directed SEBI to pass final order under Section 11B proceedings within a period of 4 weeks from that day. Counsel for the appellant has no objection if extension of time is granted as the appellant is also seeking extension of time to file reply. Accordingly, we pass the following order:- A) Time to file reply by appellant is extended by 4 weeks from today. B) SEBI shall pass final order on or before September 20, 2014. 2. Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!