Victoria Enterprises Ltd. vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 13.09.2019

Misc. Application No. 312 of 2019 And Appeal No. 196 of 2019

Victoria Enterprises Ltd. Vaibhav Chambers, 2nd Floor, Income Tax Office, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 050. ..... Appellant

Versus

BSE Ltd. Floor 25, P. J. Towers, Dalal Street, Mumbai - 400 001. ... Respondent

Ms. Prachi Pandya, Advocate i/b Corporate Attorneys for the Appellant. Mr. Tomu Francis, Advocate with Mr. Arka Saha, Advocate i/b Khaitan & Co. for the Respondent.

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) 2

Misc. Application No. 312 of 2019 :

1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Against the

order of delisting, the present appeal has been filed. There is a delay

of 224 days in filing the appeal. The ground urged is that after the

passing of the order the appellant was coordinating with the

respondent for setting aside the impugned order. Further, the

company was not financially sound and was suffering losses and

therefore, found it difficult to arrange the requisite funds for

preferring the present appeal. The third ground urged is that it took

some time for the appellant to identify a lawyer who could advise the

appellant and file the appeal. For the reasons stated aforesaid, we

find that sufficient cause has been shown. The delay in filing the

appeal is condoned on payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- which shall

be deposited by the appellant before the Registrar of this Tribunal

within three weeks from today. Misc. Application is allowed.

Appeal No. 196 of 2019 :

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The

impugned order is squarely covered by a decision of this Tribunal in

Chokhani International Ltd. vs. BSE Ltd. (Appeal No. 348 of 2018)

decided on August 7, 2019.

3

2. For the reasons stated therein, we find that after the issuance of

show cause notice no opportunity of personal hearing was provided

to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order is violative of

principles of natural justice as embodied under Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass an appropriate

order afresh after hearing the appellant subject to the condition that

the appellant would deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lacs before the

respondent. The amount so deposited would be subject to the fresh

order that would be passed by the respondent.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

Sd/-

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 13.09.2019 Prepared & Compared by PTM