Order in the matter of Unimers India Ltd.
- Order No.WTM/RKA/OIAE/127/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a company has failed to redress investor grievances, a direction under section 11B restraining it and its directors from accessing the securities market is not necessary once those grievances have been disposed of and are no longer pending. The show cause proceedings may be closed on that basis, with the company and its directors cautioned to be vigilant about investor grievance redressal in future.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Under section 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 in the matter of Unimers India Ltd.
In respect of Unimers India Ltd. and its directors namely, Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta, Mr. Sridhar Santhanam Titai, Mr. Ravi Prakash Ganti, Mr. Purshotam Shastri, Mr. Madhusudan Mukundalal Ghosh 1. Unimers India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Unimers' or 'the company') is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 2/2, TTC Industrial Area, D Block, M.I.D.C., Belapur - Thane Road, Navi Mumbai – 400 705, Maharashtra. The shares of Unimers are listed on Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.
2. Unimers obtained SCORES authentication on June 10, 2011 but failed to redress nine investor grievances pending for more than thirty days. Accordingly, SEBI issued Show Cause Notices (SCNs) dated March 28, 2013, April 18, 2013 and January 6, 2014 to Unimers, its directors, namely Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta, Mr. Sridhar Santhanam Titai, Mr. Ravi Prakash Ganti, Mr. Purshotam Shastri and to Mr. Madhusudan Mukundalal Ghosh, respectively. The SCNs called upon them to show cause as to why suitable directions including the direction to restrain them from accessing the securities market for a specified period should not be issued under section 11B of the SEBI Act.
3. In reply to the SCNs, Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta and Mr. Madhusudan Mukundalal Ghosh vide their letters dated May 7, 2013 and January 13, 2014, respectively submitted inter alia, that the investor complaints which were subject of the SCNs had been disposed of. Mr. Purshotam Shastri and Mr. Sridhar Santhanam Titai submitted that they have resigned from the Board of Directors of the company during March 2013. Further, the company and Mr. Ravi Prakash Ganti, Director chose not to submit reply to the SCNs issued to them. 4. I have considered the SCNs, replies there to and other material available on record. I note that the nine investor complaints as referred to in the SCNs have been disposed of and are no longer pending.
In the matter of Unimers India Ltd.
5. 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 against Unimers India Ltd. and its directors, as contemplated in the SCNs issued to them. The SCNs are accordingly disposed of. However, they are advised to take utmost care and be vigilant in future, in respect of redressal of investor grievances.
Date: October 27th 2014 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