Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh, Member 1. By way of present appeal the appellant is challenging the impugned order dated December 19, 2012 passed by the respondent imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the appellant under the provisions of Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulation 7 of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997 (SAST Regulations, 1997). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant, namely, SPS Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office in Mumbai. The appellant is a registered stock broker with membership of Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) and National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE). 3 A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated February 27, 2007 came to be issued to the appellant by the respondent pursuant to certain investigations undertaken into the trading in the scrip of Prudential Pharmaceuticals Limited (PPL). It is alleged in the SCN that the appellant fail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer 1. In these three appeals filed under section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act for short) appellants seek to challenge three orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) all dated 31st July, 2012. By the said orders all dated 31st July, 2012, penalty amounting to Rs.7 lac, Rs.7 lac and Rs.8 lac has been imposed upon the respective appellants for the offences committed by them under section 15HA of the SEBI Act and Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations for short). Since facts in all these appeals arise from common investigation, all these three appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. During the period 27th March, 2009 to 12th August, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the investigat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar (Oral) 1. This appeal is restored to the file of this Tribunal pursuant to an order passed by the Apex Court on April 30, 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2004. 2. On restoration, registry issued notice on July 9, 2013 fixing hearing of the appeal on July 25, 2013. 3. On July 25, 2013 when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the registry informed us that the notice sent on July 9, 2013 has been returned with the postal remark Addressee moved. 4. Thereupon, the registry was directed to issue fresh notice to the appellants after receiving correct address of the appellants from the respondent. 5. As the respondent could not produce the correct address of the appellants, the registry issued fresh notice on August 12, 2013 at the last known address of the appellants mentioned in the memo of appeal. However, the said notices have been returned with the postal remark Addressee moved. 6. Today when the appeal is taken up for hearing none appears on behalf of the appellants. In the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar (Oral) Misc. Application No. 26 of 2013:- There is a delay of 253 days in filing the appeal. An application has been filed seeking condonation of the delay. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Appeal No. 57 of 2013:- This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by whole time member of the respondent on May 11, 2012 (impugned order for short) whereby the ex parte order passed on December 28, 2011 has been confirmed. By ex parte order dated December 28, 2011 appellant is prohibited from buying, selling or dealing in any securities, in any manner whatsoever, in the proprietary account, till further directions. 2. Challenging the impugned order appellant has filed the present appeal on March 11, 2013. It is the case of the appellant that in similar cases since confirmatory orders were vacated, appellant was hoping that in the case of appellant also similar order would be passed. 3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent while denying tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer 1. In this appeal filed under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act for short) the appellant seeks to challenge the directions contained in the order passed by the respondent on December 4, 2008 (impugned order for short) which was served upon the appellant on July 29, 2011. By the said belatedly served order, the appellant is called upon to carry out two directions which according to the appellant are wholly unjustified in view of the events that took place prior to the passing of the impugned order and subsequent to passing of the impugned order. 2. The controversy in the present case arises on account of fraud unearthed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) constituted under the SEBI Act relating to the first sale of shares by 21 private companies to the general public known as Initial Public Offering (IPOs for short). 3. SEBI Act is enacted by the Parliament with a view to promote orderly and he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh, Member The instant appeal is filed by Maitreya Services Private Limited and two of its directors (Appellants) against order dated March 25, 2013 (Impugned Order) passed by SEBI (Respondent) holding that the Appellants are carrying on business activities in the nature of collective Investment Schemes (CISs) without being registered with the Respondent as required under the provisions of the SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (CIS Regulations). The Impugned Order directs the Appellants to wind up their schemes and refund all monies collected from investors along with returns payable as per the terms of offer within three months from the date of the Impugned Order, along with a winding up and repayment report to SEBI in accordance with the CIS Regulations. 2. Brief facts leading to the dispute are that Appellant No. 1, Maitreya Services Private Limited, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 purportedly engaged in the business of real estate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer The appellant has filed this appeal against the ex-parte order passed by the respondent on September 21, 2011 and also the interim order passed by the respondent on January 25, 2012. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that even though almost two years have passed after passing the ex-parte ad-interim order, the respondent has not completed the investigation and has not passed a final order and as a result serious prejudice is caused to the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent on instruction states that the respondent would complete the investigation and issue a show cause notice within a period of six weeks and pass a final order within a period of four weeks thereafter, provided the appellant cooperates in the matter. He further states on instruction that the respondent would not seek any extension of time for passing the final order. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant on instruction states that the appellant would co-operate in the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh, Member and Presiding Officer (Offg.) The present appeal is filed by Gillette India Limited, hereinafter referred to as Appellant, against order dated April 26, 2013 (Impugned Order) passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, hereinafter referred to as Respondent no. 1, rejecting the method proposed by the Appellant to attain the minimum public shareholding requirement of 25% in accordance with the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (SCRR). The appeal has been filed under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act). 2. Respondent number 2 is a promoter of the Appellant based out of India holding 75.9% of the voting rights in the Appellant company. Respondent number 3 is the Indian promoter group which is entitled to 12.9% of the voting rights. 3. Brief facts leading up to the dispute are that the Appellant is a public company with shares listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (BSE) and the National Stock Exchange o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh (Oral) The present appeal has been filed against an order dated February 28, 2013 passed by the Adjudicating Officer imposing a penalty of Rs.5,00,000 on the appellant under section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act, 1992 for violation of sections 11C(2) and 11C(3) of the SEBI Act. 2. Brief facts leading to the case are as follows. M/s. Parag Vanijya Private Limited (the appellant) is a private company limited by shares duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Joyanta Majumdar and Mr. Gautam Ghosh were the promoter directors of the appellant company since incorporation. Due to change in management of the appellant company, Mr. Manish Dalmia and Mr. Girish Dalmia were appointed on May 03, 2010 as promoter directors of the appellant company. Thereafter, Mr. Joyanta Majumdar and Mr. Gautam Ghosh resigned from the Board on June 14, 2010. 3. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) received a reference from the Income Tax Department (ITD), containing certain findings in the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh (Oral) Nobody appears on behalf of the Appellant in this case despite second call. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this matter with the assistance of Mr. Mihir Mody, learned counsel for the Respondent and the pleadings in the appeal. Mr. Mihir submits that he has received a copy of the appeal and has gone through it. 2. At the outset, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the impugned order is dated May 23, 2011 and there is no application for condonation of delay. In view of this, it is submitted that the appeal itself is not maintainable. After hearing the learned counsel for the Respondent and perusing the appeal, we are in agreement with him that an application for condonation of delay is required to be filed by the Appellant before the appeal is entertained. In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh and better appeal as per law along with application for condonation of delay, if so advise...
Tag this Judgment!