M/S. Roselabs Finance Ltd. vs Sebi on 21 March, 2016

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Securities Appellate Tribunal

M/S. Roselabs Finance Ltd. vs Sebi on 21 March, 2016

Bench: J.P. Devadhar

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                 MUMBAI

                                            Date of Decision: 21.03.2016


                   Misc. Application No. 148 of 2015
                                 And
                         Appeal No. 186 of 2015

M/s. Roselabs Finance Ltd.
416, Anand Mangal Complex,
B/H, Omkar House, C.G. Road,
Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad- 380 009                                            ...Appellant

Versus

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


Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate for the Respondent.


CORAM: Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer
       Jog Singh, Member

Per: Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)


                   Misc. Application No. 148 of 2015


      There is delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. By Miscellaneous

application applicant seeks condonation of the said delay. For the reasons

stated in the application, delay is condoned.

      Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly.
                                          2


                              Appeal No. 186 of 2015

1.

Appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer ("AO" for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for short) on December 19, 2014, whereby penalty of ` 2,53,72,500/- lac is imposed on the appellant and similar penalty is also imposed on several other persons under Section 15H and 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ("SEBI Act" for short).

2. It is relevant to note that all the noticees (including the appellant) had contended before the AO of SEBI that in all these cases the shares transferred erroneously were received back and hence it cannot be said that the said transactions triggered Takeover Regulations. In the impugned order the AO of SEBI has held as follows:-

"It is highly unlikely that the shares were transferred from and received back in the accounts of all the notices erroneously. Further, the noticees have not produced any evidence in support of their contention regarding erroneous transfer of securities"

3. This Tribunal, has set aside the impugned order in case of other noticees (Appeal No. 316 of 2015 to Appeal No. 320 of 2015) on 16.03.2016 qua those noticees and remanded the matters for fresh decision on merits.

4. In the present case also we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of AO of SEBI for passing fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. It would be open to the appellant to produce evidence in support of its contention that the transfers effected by the appellant were erroneous transfers and hence the erroneously transferred shares were received back.

5. All contentions of both sides are kept open.

6. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer Sd/-

Jog Singh Member 21.03.2016 Prepared & Compared By: PK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Securities Appellate Tribunal