MEGA STOCKS LIMITED Vs. SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
LAWS(SB)-2003-4-3
SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on April 10,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

C.Achuthan, - (1.) THE Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India, made an order on August 29, 2001 debarring Shri Arun Kumar Bajoria (Shri Bajoria) and certain other persons viz. Mega Resources Ltd, Mega Stocks Ltd, THE Hooghly Mills India Ltd, Pooja Bajoria, Mohini Devi Bajoria, Lata Devi Bajoria and Meenakshi Jatia, from accessing the capital market, and dealing directly or indirectly in securities, for a period of one year. It was also directed that an adjudicating officer be appointed to inquire into violations, if any, of section 15A (b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act,1992 in respect of failure by Shri Bajoria and others to comply with the disclosure requirements under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers ) Regulations 1997. THE order further stated that as Shri Bajoria and the persons acting in concert have already reduced their holding to below 5% of the paid up capital of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. no specific directions are being issued to sell the shares acquired in violation of the 1997 Regulations. Mega Resources Ltd., challenged the order in Appeal No. 49/2001. THE Tribunal vide its order dated 19.3.2002 in the said appeal held that the Respondent's direction debarring the Appellant in the said appeal was untenable. THE present appeal was filed thereafter i.e. on 17.6.2002 by the rest of the persons (except Shri Bajoria) to whom the order is directed. Defects in the appeal pointed out by the Registry were removed and the appeal was resubmitted on 8.7.2002. THE Appellants in their appeal had sought interim stay of the impugned order. Parties were heard on this prayer and the Tribunal granted interim stay of that part of the order debarring the Appellants from accessing the capital market and dealing in securities, till the disposal of the appeal. THE interim order was made on 7.8.2002. After passing the interim order the appeal was posted for disposal on 14.10.2002. THE Tribunal reposted the appeal on 21.11.2002 with due notice (dated 4.10.2002) to the parties. On 21.11.2002 no one represented the Appellants. Respondent was represented. Neither was there any request for adjournment. Appeal posted for disposal on 27.1.2003 vide notice dated 22.11.2002. Matter could not be taken up on 27.1.2003. THE Appellants were informed of the same in advance. Posted for disposal on 24.3.2003 with due notice (dated 18.2.2003) to parties. No one represented the Appellants. Respondent was represented. Neither was there any request for adjournment. Again posted for disposal on 10.4.2002 at 11 A.M. vide notice dated 24.3.2003. Today also no one present for the Appellants. Respondent is represented. No written request for adjournment from the Appellants has been received.
(2.) It is noted that the Respondent's direction debarring the Appellants from accessing the capital market and from dealing in securities was for a period of one year from the date of the order i.e. 29.8.2001. Since the currency of the prohibition was for a year from 29.8.2001, the same is no longer in operation now. The prohibition ceased on 28.8.2002. From the conduct of the Appellants it is clear that they are not interested in pursuing the appeal further. They have not responded to the notices posting the appeal for disposal, after obtaining interim stay on 7.8.2002. It is also noticed that the impugned order debarring the Appellants from accessing the capital market and from dealing in securities is no more in force as it was effective only for a year from 29.8.2001. Possibly this could be a reason for the Appellants to not to pursue the appeal.
(3.) IN any case as the Appellants are not prosecuting the appeal there is no point in keeping the same on record.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.