Dismissed

Laxmi Girish Jalan v. the Securities and Exchange Board

Bombay HC21 Aug 2012WP/1057/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retail investor shareholder of India Foils Ltd., sought a direction to SEBI to file an appeal against a BIFR amalgamation order. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the remedy lies in filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction under Section 25 of SICA.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to lodge an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) A

Laxmi Girish Jalan Vs the Securities and Exchange Board — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

gopi

wp-1057-12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1057 OF 2012

¶7

Mrs. Laxmi Girish Jalan ..Petitioner Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India ..Respondent

¶8

Mr. Sandeep Jalan for petitioner.

¶9

Dr. Poornima Advani, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ajay Khaire, for respondent.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 21 August 2012.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to adopt appropriate proceedings and file an appeal on behalf of the shareholders of M/s.India Foils Ltd. IFL) against the order dated 30 September 2010 passed by the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in Case No.08/2006. The petitioner had submitted representation dated 25 June 2011 to the Chairman of the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) making grievance against the order dated 30 September 2010 of the BIFR sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation of sick M/s.India Foils Limited (the Transferor Company) with M/s.Ess Dee Aluminum Limited (the Transferee company). The detailed representation dated 25 June 2011 was, however, not treated as an appeal, and by its order dated 4 August 2011, the AAFIR directed the registry to inform the appellant to remove the deficiencies and to file the appeal in accordance

¶13

1/3

¶14

gopi 2 wp-1057-12

¶15

with the procedure laid down in Clause 1 (a) and (b) of the Notification dated 3 April 1996. Thereafter by order dated 16 September 2011 the AAFIR dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as well as for not having been filed according to the procedure laid down under Section 13(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (SICA). The Appellate Authority, however, did refer to the letter dated 6 September 2011 of the petitioner's Advocate stating that it is very difficult for a retail investor to engage herself in conventional, time consuming, procedurally complex and extremely expensive Court litigations.

¶16

The petitioner has challenged the SEBI communication dated 22 July 2011 (Annexure E) and 12 January 2012 (Annexure G) by which the SEBI informed the petitioner that the petitioner's complaint does not fall within the purview of SEBI and that it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 25 of the SICA, but the petitioner's complaint was not entertained on the ground that it was not filed as an appeal as prescribed by the relevant Notification. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will now file an appeal as per the prescribed procedure, but the petitioner is a retail investor shareholder and the petitioner could not file the appeal in the prescribed format on account of her inability to marshal the resources for this purpose. The petitioner is residing at Nagpur and she could not contact any lawyer in Delhi, who can help her with prosecuting the appeal before the AAFIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will now lodge the appeal before the Appellate Authority as per the prescribed procedure, but the petitioner will be faced with the question of limitation.

2/3

3 wp-1057-12

gopi

It will be open to the petitioner to mention her difficulties in the application for condonation of delay which may be filed along with the appeal memo under Section 25 of the SICA. The Appellate Authority will duly consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in proper perspective.

¶21

Subject to the above observations, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to lodge an appeal before the AAFIR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

¶22

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶24

3/3

Laxmi Girish Jalan v. the Securities and Exchange Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Girish Jalan v. the Securities and Exchange Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gopi Gorwani Vs Jeevan Prabha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., and 2 Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Krushna Ranu Gavade and Other

The State of Maharashtra and Other Vs Mahadev Sopan Sarvade and Others

Shri Satish Shankarrao Paralkar and Anr. Vs Mr. Anil v. Ranadive

Gunvantrai Shivlalgupta Vs Miss. Snehlata Chhotalal Mody and Ors.

Mahendrakumar Prmanand Pal Vs the Municiapl Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 10 Ors. and Harbai Damji Patel