Parsoli Corporation Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 62 of 2019
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
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