- (1.) Mr. G. E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General of India, fairly concedes that the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained and the same be set aside and the case be remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
(2.) On the asking of the counsel for the parties, we are mentioning the facts which have come into existence subsequent to the passing of the impugned judgment by the Division bench of the High Court. Securities and Exchange board of India (for short 'sebi') passed two separate orders on 20 July 1999, one of levying the penalty debarring the appellant from accessing the capital market for a period of two years; and the second relating to determination of differential price. The first order of sebi debarring the appellant from accessing the capital market for a period of two years has worked itself out because the period of two years has already lapsed. Against the second order of SEBI relating to determination of differential price, the appellant has already filed an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority and the same is pending consideration before the said authority. Section 11 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 has been amended by the Securities and exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act No. 59 of 2002).
(3.) In view of the concession made by the learned Solicitor General of India, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case back to the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. LPA No. 236 of 1997 [sebi v. Alka synthetics Ltd. (1999) 1 Comp LJ 396 (Guj. ) is restored back on the file of the High Court. All contentions are left open.;