Securities Appellate Tribunal
Viswapriya Financial Services And ... vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 8 July, 2004
JUDGMENT
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. (Presiding Officer)
1. Appeal taken up with consent of parties. This appeal is confined only to the appellant company Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd. and a common order is passed with respect to the company both in appeal 118/2002 & appeal 13/2003. The company has been directed not to access the capital market or deal in securities for a period of five years in both the cases and the period comes to an end on 24th November 2007.
2. The matter was heard on merits for sometime and it was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the order under Section 11B could not have been passed since the power to suspend a person from trading in the capital market was specifically empowered by Parliament only with effect from 29.10.2002. The alleged misconduct was prior to the amendment to Section 11(4). Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that there is inherent power in Section 11B which gives a right to SEBI to pass appropriate orders to protect the interest of investors. We need not go into this question as the counsel for the appellant in both the appeals fairly submitted that his client will not access the capital market or deal in securities for a period of five years, which on a concurrent reading would come to an end on 24.11.2007.
3. In view of the undertaking of the company it appears that the appeals do not survive for consideration. The company is directed to file an affidavit stating that they are not going to access the capital market or deal in securities for a period of five years in both the appeals. The undertaking shall be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order on an assurance given by the senior counsel for the appellants. These appeals accordingly do not survive for consideration in view of the undertaking given by the counsel for the appellant and in view of the undertaking to be filed by the company.
4. It is our desire that the impugned order shall not be treated as a stigma in view of the fact that the appellant was not heard on merits at his request on account of the undertaking given by the counsel on behalf of the company. No costs.
(Pronounced in Court)