BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Appeal No. 151 of 2012
Date of decision: 25.07.2012
- Mr. Dhan Raj Bagrecha
- Mrs. Chandu Bala Bagrecha
15, Bagrecha Building,
Tripolia Bazar,
Jodhpur (Raj.) 342 001.… Appell s
Versus
- Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051. - Ms. Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd.
Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Off Jogeshwari
Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E),
Mumbai – 400 060. - Ms. Link Intime (India) Ltd.
C-13, Pannalal Silk Mills Compound,
L. B. S. Marg, Bhandup (W),
Mumbai – 400 078. … Respondent s
None for Appellants.
Mr. Mihir Mody, Advocate with Mr. Mobin Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent
No. 1.
Mr. J. J. Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. D. Israni, Mr. S. S. Israni, Advocates
for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : P. K. Malhotra, Member & Presiding Officer ( Offg .)
S. S. N. Moorthy, Member
Per : P. K. Malhotra (Oral)
None appears on behalf of the appellants. A letter dated July 21, 2012
addressed to the Registrar has been received on July 23, 2012 from the appellants
containing written submissions stating that instead of appearing personally,
appellants are making written submissions. We are proceeding to deal with the
matter on the basis of material available on record.
2
- The grievance of the appellants is against Respondent no. 2 and M/s. Link
Intime (India) Ltd., Respondent no. 3 relating to delay in issue of share
certificates (Sub-division) and payment of dividend to the appellants.
- Mrs. Chandu Bala Bagrecha, appellant 2 is the shareholder of
M/s. Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd., holding 500 shares (after sub-division) of the
company. In the year 2006, the appellants made application to respondent 2 for
issue of duplicate certificates in lieu of lost/misplaced share certificates. It
appears from record that the appellants failed to comply with certain procedural
requirements for issue of duplicate certificates and dividend warrants. Therefore,
respondents 2 and 3 could n ot to antrequest. It ars om
record that the appellants finally settled the matter with the company vide
settlement dated April 11, 2012 which reads as under:-
“ To Whomsoever It may Concerned
The refed SAdjudi cation Order dt. 13th Oct.,
2011 as follows –
Quote:
8(b) With Respect to Complaints of Mrs. Bagrecha the alleged
grievances were (i) delay on the part of Noticee to issue duplicate
Share Certificates (ii) delay in payment of dividends for the period
2005-06 and 2006-07 (iii) the shareholder had suffered loss of
Profit due to delay in issuance of duplicate share Certificate.
8(h) Despite the repeated request from the RTA she failed to
submit correct and proper documents. She instead preferred
pressure tactics by writing number of Complaints to various
regulatory authorities. With a view to resolve her grievance the
noticee decided to waive its standard Procedure and instructed the
RTA to issue duplicate Share Certificates. Accordingly on July 11,
2008 the RTA dispatched the Subdivided Share Certificate no 520
bearing distinctive numbers 295256 – 295755 of 500 Shares of Rs.
2/- each issued in lieu of the share certificate no 24052 for 100
shares of Rs. 10/- lost by the Shareholder.
Unquote:
The Above matter is amicably settled at the meeting held at
Jodhpur between Mr. Sanjay Rathi representative of M/s Pantaloon
Retail (India) Ltd. and Mr. Dhan Raj Bagrecha husband of Mrs.
Chandubala Bagrecha the Complainant. The proceedings of
Meeting held in presence of Mrs. Chandubala Bagrecha and all the
participants of the meng siett
3
- It is also seen from the record that the appellants were simultaneously
pursuing certain other remedies and calling for information from the Board
through various applications filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
These applications have finally been disposed of by the Chief Information
Commission by its order dated May 10, 2012 observing that there is no
information which can be provided to the appellants other than whatever has been
given by the CPIO.
- In the forwarding letter of the appeal, the appellants have stated that the
appeal is being filed within time because the last order in the matter was of
Central Information Commission dated May 10, 2012. However, in the appeal,
the appellants are seeking relief with regard to loss suffered due to collusion of
Board officials and praying for imposing fine on the respondents with a further
prayer that whole or part thereof be awarded to the appellants.
- Learned counsel for the respondents have taken a preliminary objection as
to the maintainability of the appeal and we find merit in the objection. Section
15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act), int erali a ,
provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Board or by an order made
by an adjudicating officer under the Act may prefer an appeal before this Tribunal
within forty five days from the date on which a copy of the order made is received
by him. Two essential conditions for maintainability of the appeal under Section
15T theActar(i) preredat ‘o’ Bo the
adjuding ficeand the mustbe ba rson ggriev
the present case, there is no order of the Board that has been impugned or
challenged by the appellants. As per settlement noted above, the appellants have
already settled the matter with the company. In so far as information required by
appellants under RTI Act is concerned, the matter has already been adjudicated by
the Central Information Commission by its order dated May 10, 2012. If
4
appellants are aggrieved by that order, remedy lies elsewhere and not before this
Tribunal. As regards relief pertaining to alleged loss incurred by the appellants,
the remedy lies before Civil Court and not before this Forum.
- We, therefore, uphold the objection raised by the respondents with regard
to maintainability of the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.
Sd/-
P. K. Malhotra
Member &
Presiding Officer ( O ffg .)
Sd/-
S. S. N. Moorthy
Member
25.07.2012
Prepared & Compared by
ptm