Sonia Raj Sood vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 80 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not direct SEBI to consider a complaint, or grant relief, at the instance of a person who is not an investor in the securities of the company complained against and where no grievance has been raised by any investor against that company. Where a pending public interest litigation before the High Court concerns the same respondent and subject matter, the Tribunal will not entertain a parallel appeal in the nature of public interest litigation seeking the same or similar relief.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 11.06.2018
Appeal No. 80 of 2018
Sonia Raj Sood Temporarily at 601, Neelam Apartment, Shirley Rajan Road, Rizzi Complex, Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400 050. ...Appellant
Versus [[
1.
Securities and Exchange Board of India Through its Chairman / Sr. Officials SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
2. Indian Hotels Company Ltd. (IHCL) Through its Chairman / Sr. Official 9th Floor, Express Tower, Barrister Rajni Patel Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. ...Respondents
Smt. Sonia Raj Sood, Appellant in person.
Mr. Pulkit Sukhramani, Advocate with Ms. Vidhi Jhawar, Advocate i/b The Law Point for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Rafique Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr. Adarsh Saxena, Ms. Rachyeta Shah, Advocates i/b Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for Respondent for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)
1. By this appeal appellant seeks an order directing Securities and
Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) to dispose of the complaint filed
by the appellant against Indian Hotels Company Ltd (respondent no. 2) on 2
February 5, 2018 in a time bound manner and further seeks an order
directing Respondent No. 2 to return Rs. 600 crore collected from the public
by issuing rights issue for expansion of Hotel Sea Rock and also seeks an
order directing respondent no. 2 to return Rs. 2000 crore collected
previously from the public for purchase of Hotel Sea Rock.
2. Whenever it is found that SEBI has failed to consider grievance of an
investor, this Tribunal has issued appropriate directions in that behalf.
However, in the present case, appellant is not an investor in the scrip of
respondent no. 2 and in the absence of any grievance made by the investors
against respondent no. 2 we see no reason to issue any direction to SEBI to
consider the complaint made by the appellant against respondent no. 2. In
any event, admittedly the Public Interest Litigation initiated by the appellant
against respondent no. 2 is pending before the High Court.
3. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the present
appeal which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Although we had imposed costs
of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant for filing such frivolous appeal, looking to
the fact that the appellant is appearing in person and is an advocate, we
refrain from imposing costs.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 11.06.2018 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