Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that where the controversy in an appeal is squarely covered by an earlier decision of the same Tribunal, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is to be quashed, the appeal being allowed on that basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision: 01.12.2020Appeal No. 300 of 2020Alok Industries Limited17/5/1, 521/1, Village - Rakholi / Saily,Silvassa - 396 230Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli ...AppellantVersusSecurities and Exchange Board of India,SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400 051 ...RespondentMr. Zerick Dastur, Advocate with Ms. Smriti Singh,Mr. Khushil Shah, Mr. Kunal Kothary, Mr. Jash Dalia andMs. Shivani Kapur Jeet, Advocates i/b Zerick Dastur,Advocates and Solicitors.Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate i/b ELP for the Respondent.CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding OfficerJustice M. T. Joshi, Judicial MemberPer: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)1.We have heard Mr. Zerick Dastur, learned counsel for theappellant and Mr. Abhiraj Arora, learned counsel for therespondent through video conference.22. The appellant has challenged the order dated July 30, 2020passed by the Adjudicating Officer ("AO" for convenience) ofthe Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" forconvenience) imposing a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs for violation ofSEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements)Regulations, 2015 ("LODR Regulations" for convenience).3. It transpires that the State Bank of India filed a Petitionunder the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ("IBC") pursuant towhich an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed on July18, 2017. Subsequently, a Resolution Plan was accepted on June20, 2018 which was approved by National Company LawTribunal ("NCLT") on March 08, 2019. Six months later theAO issued a show cause notice dated October 18, 2019 allegingviolation of LODR Regulations by the Company.4. In our view, the controversy involved in the present appealis squarely covered by a decision of this Tribunal in MonnetIspat & Energy Limited vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 238 of 2020decided on 29.10.2020).35. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot besustained and is quashed. The appeal is allowed with no orderas to costs.6. The present matter was heard through video conference
due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign
a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be
issued by the Registry. In these circumstances, this order will be
digitally signed by the Presiding Officer on behalf of the bench
and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally
signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a
digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.
TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac 2ab7954d509c85ed6e0f7c41,
AGARWAL serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e7999 727d404aa38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.12.01 16:04:19 +05'30' Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 01.12.2020 PK
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.
