Suman Motels Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for an interim stay of SEBI's order directing a refund to investors in collective investment schemes. The court found the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience, noting it had not complied with registration or winding-up regulations despite assurances.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
| Appeal No.58/2002 |
|---|
| In the matter of: |
| Suman Motels Ltd. Appellant |
| Vs. |
| Securities and Exchange Board of India Respondent |
| Appearance: |
| Shri Burzin Somandy |
| Advocate |
| Shri Ashwini Kotian, Advocate |
| Ms. Nandita Rao, Advocate |
| I/b. M/s. vinod Mistry & Co., For Appellant |
| Shri J. Ranganayakulu |
| Jt. Legal Adviser, SEBI |
| Shri Praveen Trivedi |
| Astt. Legal Adviser, |
| SEBI For Respondent |
INTERIM ORDER
The Appellant claiming to be aggrieved by the Respondent’s order dated 19.7.2002 has filed the present appeal. By the said order, the Appellant, which is operating collective investment schemes, was directed to refund the money collected by it in the schemes to the investors within one month from the date of the order. By the said order the Appellant has been informed of the consequences that would follow in case refund of money as directed is not made.
When the Appellant’s prayer for interim order staying the operation of the impugned order was taken up, Shri Burzin Somandy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is doing whatever it can to refund the money to the investors. He stated that the Appellant has already approached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court seeking sanction of a Scheme of Compromise / Arrangement under section 391/392 of the Companies Act, 1956 and for the purpose meeting of the creditors was called twice in the past, but could not be held because of disturbances caused by certain persons, that again the meeting has been called some time in October.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant an interim order staying the operation of SEBI's direction to refund investor money.
Whether the appellant has established a prima facie case and balance of convenience for an interim stay.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Suman Motels Ltd.
- respondent
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