Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Parsoli Corporation Ltd. vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal28 January 2020Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A party aggrieved by an order is the person against whom the order was passed; a company cannot maintain an appeal against an adjudication order that imposed a penalty only on its directors in their individual capacity.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision : 28.01.2020

Misc. Application No. 67 of 2019 And Appeal No. 62 of 2019

Parsoli Corporation Ltd. Oracle Point, Ground Floor, 3, Guru Nanak Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050. ..... Appellant

Versus

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

Mr. B. M. Chatterji, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Ranit Basu, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Mr. Chirag Bhavsar, Ms. Eram Quraishi, Advocates i/b MDP & Partners for the Respondent. 2

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.

Pursuant to an order of Securities & Exchange Board of

India (hereinafter referred to as, 'SEBI') dated July 27, 2010

whereby certain directions were issued to make an open offer which

order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Since the directions were not complied with, a show cause notice was

issued by the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'AO')

to the directors, namely, Zafar Younus Sareshwala and Uves Younus

Sareshwala to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed

for non compliance of the direction issued by the Whole Time

Member in its order. After considering the reply, the AO passed the

impugned order dated June 22, 2018 imposing a penalty of Rs. 25

lacs to be paid by the two directors jointly and severally.

2. The said directors have not filed any appeal before this

Tribunal till date. However, the present appeal has been filed on

behalf of the company alongwith an application for condoning the

delay.

3

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of

the view that the appeal is not maintainable in as much as the

impugned order has been passed against the directors and not against

the company. Dismissed.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

Sd/-

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 28.01.2020 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