Neesa Technologies Ltd vs Sebi

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date : 8.9.2017

Misc. Application No.204 of 2017 And Review Application No.3 of 2017 In Appeal No.311 of 2016

Neesa Technologies Ltd. 9th Floor, Cambay Grand, B/h, PERD Center, Near Sola Overbridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, ..... Applicant (Gujarat) (Org. Appellant)

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, ...... Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. (Org. Respondent)

Mr. Santosh Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Reheja, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sukhramani and Ms. Vidhi Jhawar, Advocates i/b. The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per : Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)

1.

By Review Application No.3 of 2017 applicant seeks review of our

order passed in Appeal no.311 of 2016 on 28.4.2017. Miscellaneous

Application No. 204 of 2017 is filed seeking condonation of 23 days delay

in filing the Review Application.

2. By our order dated 28.4.2017 we had upheld the order passed by the

Whole Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI'

for short) on 2.6.2016 wherein the applicant and some of its directors were

held to have violated inter alia Securities and Exchange Board of India

(Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations, 2008 and accordingly 2

directed to refund the money collected through issue of Non-Convertible

Debentures within the time stipulated therein and further the appellant

company and some of its Directors were restrained from dealing in

securities market for a period of 4 years.

3. Appeal filed by the applicant against the decision of SEBI was

dismissed inter alia by relying a decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited & ors. vs. Securities and

Exchange Board of India reported in (2013) 1 SCC 1, wherein it is held that

issuance of debentures to more than 49 person would be a public issue

attracting all the provisions of SEBI Act and the regulations made

thereunder. Admittedly the company has issued debentures to 341 persons

without making any public offer as contemplated under the regulations

framed by SEBI.

4. In the Misc. Application it is stated that the delay in filing the

Review Application was due to the fact that the company is suffering from

huge financial crunches and some of the Directors/Authorised Persons was

not available. These facts, in our opinion do not constitute sufficient cause

for condoning the delay.

5. In these circumstances, we see no reason to condone the delay.

Accordingly the Misc. Application if rejected. Consequently, the Review

Application does not survive and the same is also disposed of with no order

as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G.Nair Member 8.9.2017 Prepared and compared by RHN