Doogar & Associates Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal declined to pass an interim order staying a penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed on the appellant for delayed compliance with takeover regulations. The appellant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, favorable balance of convenience, or irreparable injury justifying the stay.
What did the court decide?
No interim order staying the impugned order was passed.
What the court decided
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
| Appeal No.60/2002 |
|---|
| In the matter of: |
| Doogar and Associates Ltd Appellant |
| Vs. |
| The Chairman |
| Securities and Exchange Board of India Respondent |
| Appearance: |
| Shri B.S. Chaudhari Officer of the Appellant |
| Ms. Anvita Awasthi |
| Company Secretary for Appellant |
| Shri A. Barua Jt. Legal Adviser, SEBI |
| Shri Joby Mathew |
| Law Officer, SEBI for Respondent |
INTERIM ORDER
The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant claiming to be aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer on 26.6.2002, imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000 holding that the Appellant as merchant banker had failed to comply with the requirements of regulations 15(2) read with regulation 24 (3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations 1997 (the 1997 Regulations) in the matter of public offer made by Allianz International Private Limited to acquire 20% of the share capital of a company viz Adhbhut Industrial Resources Ltd.
When the Appellant’s prayer for interim order staying the operation of the impugned order was taken up, the Authorised Representative of the Appellant submitted that the delay in filing the report with the Respondent was unintentional that it was due to certain administrative problems in the Appellant’s office, and the delay involved was only 2 days. He submitted that imposition of penalty is not justified in the facts of the case and prayed that the Appellant may not be insisted upon to pay the penalty during the pendency of the Appeal.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant has established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury to warrant an interim stay of the penalty order.
Whether the appellant's explanation of administrative delay and unintentional non-compliance justifies granting an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Doogar and Associates Ltd
- respondent
The Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India
Coram
C. Achuthan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court