Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Order in the matter of Orient Vegetexpo Limited (now merged with 'Jain Irrigation Systems Limited')

Securities And Exchange Board Of India11 August 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The grievances against the merged company were transferred to the transferee, Jain Irrigation Systems Limited, which had obtained SCORES authentication and disposed of them, and no other complaints were pending against it. Where the default has thus been remedied through the successor company and no investor grievance remains outstanding, no direction under section 11B of the SEBI Act is required, notwithstanding the show cause notices.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

WTM/RKA/EFD/104/2015

BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ORDER Under section 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 in the matter of Orient Vegetexpro Limited (now merged with 'Jain Irrigation Systems Limited') In respect of (1) Jain Irrigation Systems Limited and (2) Mr. Santosh Kumar Kejriwal 1. Orient Vegetexpro Limited was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 211, Udyog Bhawan, Sonawala Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063. It was observed that Mr. Santosh Kumar Kejriwal was director of Orient Vegetexpro Limited. 2. SEBI vide circular no. CIR/OIAE/1/2012 dated August 13, 2012 directed all companies whose securities are listed on stock exchanges, to obtain SEBI Complaints Redress System (SCORES) authentication by September 14, 2012 and to take appropriate necessary steps within seven days of receipt of complaints through SCORES, so as to resolve the complaint within thirty days of its receipt. 3. However, it was observed that Orient Vegetexpro Limited had not obtained SCORES authentication and it had not redressed two investor grievances pending against it.

Accordingly, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) sent a letter dated February 15, 2013, to the Compliance Officer of Orient Vegetexpro Limited, drawing his attention to the aforesaid Circular and advising him to resolve the pending grievances at the earliest. However, Orient Vegetexpro Limited failed to redress the said two investor grievances which were pending against it for more than 30 days. Therefore, SEBI issued Show Cause Notices (SCNs) dated March 28, 2013 and April 26, 2013 to Orient Vegetexpro Limited and its director, Mr. Santosh Kumar Kejriwal, respectively calling upon them to show cause as to why suitable directions including direction to restrain them from accessing the securities market for a specified period should not be issued under section 11B of the SEBI Act. However, the SCN issued to Orient Vegetexpro Limited was returned undelivered. Subsequently, the SCN was served upon Orient Vegetexpro Limited by way of affixture at it registered office address on February 12, 2014. 4. Replying to the SCN, Mr. Santosh Kumar Kejriwal vide his letter dated April 30, 2013 submitted that Orient Vegetexpro Limited has merged with Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. under the scheme approved by Hon'ble High Court, therefore, all the pending investor complaints against Orient Vegetexpro Limited may be forwarded to Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. Accordingly, investor complaints were forwarded to Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.

In the matter of Orient Vegetexpro Limited (now merged with 'Jain Irrigation Systems Limited')

5. It has been observed that Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. had already obtained SCORES authentications and both the investor grievances were disposed of. Further, SEBI has observed that there are no other complaints pending on SCORES against Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no need to pass any direction under Section 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, as contemplated in the SCNs issued in the matter.

Sd/- Date: August 11th, 2015 RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL Place: Mumbai WHOLE TIME MEMBER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

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