IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2006
Review Application No.15 of 2006
Appeal No.189 of 2004
|
Securities and Exchange Board of India
|
...... Applicant/Respondent
|
|
Versus
|
|
|
J. B. Shares and Stock Ltd.
|
...... Respondent/Appellant
|
Dr. Poornima Advani, Advocate for the Applicant-Respondent
Shri Sean Wassoodew, Advocate for the Respondent-Appellant
CORAM
Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
C. Bhattacharya, Member
Per: Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)
This is an application filed under section 15U (2) (e) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short “the Act”) seeking review of our order dated 7.3.2006 allowing Appeal no.189 of 2004 filed by J.B. Shares & Stock Ltd. the respondent herein against the order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short “the Board”) imposing on it the penalty of suspension of its certificate of registration for one year. The appellant in the main appeal is a sub broker. While allowing the appeal we had observed that the charges levelled against the appellant were vague in as much as it was mentioned that it had violated the provisions of the Act without specifying any provision thereof. We also found that violation of the provisions of ‘Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995’ had been alleged without specifying any Regulation therein. Our order is now sought to be reviewed on the ground that the charge sheet referred to by us in our order dated 7.3.2006 was infact the order appointing the enquiry officer and the charge sheet was annexed as Annexure II thereto. This, according to the learned counsel for the applicant Board, is an error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, our order deserves to be reviewed. She also contends that this error has resulted in miscarriage of justice in as much as similar orders in other cases have been upheld by this tribunal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that there is no ground for us to review our order and that it does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. It is true that the communication dated 25th June, 2002 addressed by the enquiry officer to the applicant-respondent is an order appointing the enquiry officer but a perusal of this communication makes it clear that the enquiry officer was required to enquire into the alleged contraventions referred to in that communication. No separate charge sheet had been served. When we look at the order it is clear that the allegations made against the appellant had been mentioned therein. Those allegations are, as observed by us in our order dated 7.3.2006, as vague as they could be. What is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant Board is that the charge sheet served on the appellant was actually contained in Annexure II to the communication dated 25th June, 2006. We can not agree with this contention. We have carefully gone through Annexure II and find that it is a note prepared by the office disagreeing with the findings of the investigating officer and it is not a charge sheet. It may be mentioned that the investigating officer did not attribute any wrong doing to the appellant. It appears that the Board did not agree with that report and a note was put up stating that the appellant had violated the code of conduct. That note was also sent to the appellant alongwith the communication dated 25.6.2002. This is not a charge sheet. It has not been signed by any officer on behalf of the Board. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for the review of our order dated 7.3.2006.
As regard the contention that similar orders have been up held by this tribunal in Appeals nos.150 and 209 of 2004, we can only observe that the appellants therein had not raised the plea that the charge sheet/show cause notice was vague. Those decisions therefore do not help the applicant-respondent in any manner.
There is also a delay of more than two months in filing the review application. Since we do not find any ground to review the order it is not necessary to go into the reasons which caused the delay.
In the result the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
Justice N.K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer
Sd/-
C. Bhattacharya
Member
RRN
01.12.06