Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Sharmila Raj Thackeray vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal16 June 2016J.P. Devadhar

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 is confined to confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against; it does not extend to enhancing or substituting the order passed by SEBI.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision : 16.06.2016

Misc. Application No. 127 of 2016 And Appeal No. 182 of 2016

1.

Sharmila Raj Thackeray Flat No. 1, 3rd Floor, Krishna Kunj, M.B. Raut Road, 76, Shivaji Park Scheme, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400 028.

2. Swati Sandesh Mayekar 218, Madhusheela, Bandra Band Stand, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050.

3. Sandesh Madhukar Mayekar 218, Madhusheela, Bandra Band Stand, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050.

4. Shivani Sandesh Mayekar 218, Madhusheela, Bandra Band Stand, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050.

5. Sunetra Gangadher Limaye 169/D, Laxmi Niwas, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai - 400 014.

6. Rajan Hemchandra Gupte Rajdeep, 143, Lt Dilip Gupte Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400 016.

7. Arun Sadashiv Bhide A-3/6, Satya Darshan Society, Malpa Dongri Road No. 3, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093.

8. Madhav Gangadhar Natu 20, Avishkar, 3 Mahant Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400 057.

2 9. Shilpa Rajan Gupte Rajdeep, 143, Lt Dilip Gupte Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400 016.

10. Vibha Ajit Vaze 8,9, Meghdoot, S.H. Paralkar Marg, Shivaji Park, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400 028.

11. Ajit Mahadev Vaze 8,9, Meghdoot, S.H. Paralkar Marg, Shivaji Park, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400 028.

12. Vidya Vinayak Wagle D-202, Shiv Parvati Society, Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad (West), Mumbai - 400 064.

13. Felicila Lobo Genesis Villa, St. Francis Av. Santacruz (W), Mumbai - 400 054.

14. Prodigy Finvest Pvt Ltd.

169/A, Mayur Niwas, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai - 400 014. ...Appellants

Versus

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

2. SMC Global Securities Limited 11/6B, Shanti Chamber, Pusa Road, New Delhi - 110005 and also having address at 1st Floor, Dheeraj Sagar Building, Opp. Goregaon Sports Complex, Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai - 400 064.

3. Sunchan Securities Limited (Official Liquidator of Bombay High Court) Bank of India Building, Fort, Mumbai.

3 4. Sunil Mansinghani 18/4, Navjivan Society, Mori Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400 016.

5. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.

Exchange Plaza, Plot No. C/1, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondents

Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Advocate with Ms. Shruti Sardesai, Advocate for Appellants.

Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Manish Acharya i/b Vigil Juris for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

None for Respondent No. 3.

Ms. Dhwani Mehta, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

None for Respondent No. 5.

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

Per : J.P. Devadhar (Oral)

1. Appellants have filed the above appeal (with Misc. Application

seeking condonation of delay) to challenge the order passed by the Whole

Time Member ('WTM' for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India

('SEBI' for short) on August 2, 2013. By the said order SMC Global

Securities Limited (Respondent No. 2) has been prohibited from taking up

any new assignment or contract or launch a new scheme for a period of

three months.

2. Grievance of the appellants is that they had invested funds / securities

through the Respondent No. 3 as their Trading Member, whose clearing

member was Respondent No. 2, with a view to trade / deal in securities. It is

the case of the appellants that Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in connivance with 4

each other have fraudulently utilized the funds / securities belonging to the

appellants for their own gains and thus made unlawful gains for themselves

to the detriment of the appellants. It is the case of the appellants that in the

impugned order, the WTM of SEBI instead of restraining the Respondent

No. 2 from taking up any new assignment for three months ought to have

cancelled the Registration Certificate of Respondent No. 2 as a clearing

member and further directed the Respondent No. 2 to disgorge the wrongful

gains with 18% interest. Accordingly the appellants want that this Tribunal

to modify the impugned order.

3. It is relevant to note that the appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 against

the impugned order being Appeal No. 152 of 2013 has been dismissed by

this Tribunal on January 31, 2014 and thus the impugned order has attained

finality.

4. Apart of the above, reliefs claimed in the present appeal, in fact,

amounts to seeking enhancement / substitution of the order passed by WTM

of SEBI.

5. Jurisdiction of this Tribunal u/s. 15T of the Securities and Exchange

Board of India Act, 1992 is restricted to confirm, modify or setting aside the

order appealed against and does not extend to enhancing or substituting the

order passed by SEBI.

6. In these circumstances, counsel for the appellants seeks to withdraw

the Misc. Application as also the appeal with liberty to move SEBI by way

of an application seeking redressal of grievances which remain to be

redressed even after the passing of the impugned order.

7. Accordingly, we permit the appellants to withdraw the Misc.

Application as also the appeal with liberty to the appellants to move an 5

application before SEBI seeking redressal of their grievances. If the

appellants make an application to SEBI within two weeks from today, then,

SEBI shall consider the said application and pass appropriate orders thereon

in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks thereafter.

8. Both the appeal and the Misc. Application are disposed of in the

above terms with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

16.06.2016 Prepared and compared by:

msb

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