1. Home
  2. »
  3. Enforcement
  4. »
  5. Orders
  6. »
  7. Orders of SAT

In the matter of M/s. Religare Securities Ltd

Apr 19, 2006
|
Orders : Orders of SAT

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

 

Appeal No. 60 of 2006

 

Date of Decision

19.4.2006

 

 

M/s. Religare Securities Ltd.

(Formerly M/s. Fortis Securities Ltd.)

……

Appellant

 

Versus

 

 

 

Securities & Exchange Board of India

……

Respondent

 

Present :  Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Advocate for the appellant

                  Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate for the respondent          

 

Coram:

          Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer

            C. Bhattacharya, Member

            R. N. Bhardwaj, Member

 

Per:  Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (oral)

 

             Trading in the stocks of Ind Tra Deco Ltd. (for short the Company) is under investigation and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) is looking into the matter.  Pending investigations the Board by its order dated October 5, 2005 restrained, amongst others the appellant from buying, selling or dealing in the securities of the Company directly or indirectly till further orders.  It is this interim order which is now under challenge.  When the appeal came up for hearing before us on 7.4.2006 we were not inclined to interfere with the impugned order but the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the appellant being a broker of one of the parties in a tainted deal had been proceeded against by an interim order whereas the broker on the other side in the same deal was not given a similar treatment.  We then enquired from the Board and required it to inform us whether a similar interim direction had been issued to the broker on the other side.  Mr. Kumar Desai, the learned counsel for the Board informs us that the broker on the other side was Galaxy Broking Ltd. and a similar restrain order has been issued against it.  In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the appellant was not singled out even at the initial stage. Since the matter is pending before the Board we do not think it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order at this stage.  We have been informed that the Board has issued notice to the appellant to appear before it on 25.4.2006.  Since the matter is about to reach finality and the appellant will be heard sometime next week, it is all the more necessary that we do not interfere at this stage and prejudge any of the issues.  It is made clear that all the contentions raised by the appellant are left open and it will be for it to raise  those pleas before the Board and we have no doubt that the same, if raised, will be dealt with in accordance with law.

   2.            The appeal stands disposed of as above.

 

Justice N.K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer


C. Bhattacharya
Member

 
R.N. Bhardwaj
Member

 

19.4.2006