Abhey Ram Dahiya & Anr. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 192 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
No direction can be issued by the Tribunal, on an intervention application filed by a shareholder in a matter already decided by it, either to the acquirer or to SEBI concerning non-implementation of SEBI's earlier order; the shareholder aggrieved by such non-implementation must instead move an appropriate application before SEBI.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI DATE : 20.06.2019
Misc. Application No. 280 of 2019 In Appeal No. 192 of 2018 Alongwith Misc. Application No. 195 of 2018 And Misc. Application No. 205 of 2018
Arun Goenka S/o Late Biswanath Goenka 703, Meadows, Sahara Plaza Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), ... Applicant Mumbai - 400 059. (Original Intervener)
In the matter of
1.
Abhey Ram Dahiya C/o Amardeep Singh Dahiya Constituted Attorney of Abhey Ram Dahiya, House No. 329, Sector 21- A, Chandigarh - 160 022.
2. Amardeep Singh Dahiya House No. 344, Sector 2, ... Appellants Panchkula. (Org. Appellants)
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent
Mr. Arun Goenka, Applicant in person / Original Intervener in Misc. Application No. 280 of 2019.
Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate with Mr. Chinmay Paradkar, Advocate i/b Prakash Shah & Associates for the Appellants. Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate with Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.
2 Mr. Umanath Agarwal, Applicant in person in Misc. Application No. 205 of 2018.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1. The applicant, Mr. Arun Goenka is a shareholder and is aggrieved
by non implementation of SEBI's order dated August 1, 2003 and has
filed a present application praying for issuance of certain directions to
the acquirer as well as to SEBI. In our opinion, no direction can be
issued by this Tribunal either to the acquirer or to SEBI on the
intervention application of a shareholder in the matter which has now
been decided by the Tribunal. If a shareholder is aggrieved by the non
implementation of the SEBI's order, it is open to the shareholder to
move an appropriate application before SEBI. The application is
accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member
Sd/-
Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 20.06.2019 Prepared & Compared by PTM
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free