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

In the matter of Devesh Bhatt

Jan 31, 2006
|
Orders : Orders of SAT

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

 

Appeal No: 140 of 2005

Date of Decision     31/01/2006

 

 

Devesh Bhatt

…..Appellant

 

Versus

 

 

Securities & Exchange Board of India

….Respondent

 

 

 

Appellant in person

 

None 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)

 

1.                  This order will dispose of two appeals nos. 140 and 141 of 2005 in which common questions of law and fact arise. The appellant concedes that the order in appeal no. 140 of 2005 will govern the other case as well.

2.                  Heard the appellant in person.  The present appeal is wholly misconceived and in our view it is not maintainable. The grievance of the appellant is that UCO Bank came out with a public issue in September, 2003 the prospectus for which was widely published in the press and that the same contained wrong information in material aspects.  He complained to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short “the Board”) but it did not take any action.  It was thereafter that the appellant served the Board with a notice calling upon it to take a final decision on the complaint filed by him failing which the appellant would presume that the Board has rejected the representation.  It is against this deemed rejection by the Board that the present appeal has been filed.

3.                  The appeal to the Tribunal lies under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 against an order passed by the Board or by its adjudicating officer.

4.                  Since no order has been passed by the Board nor has the adjudicating officer taken cognizance of the matter we are clearly of the view that the appeal is not maintainable. The appellant cannot claim that merely because on receipt of a notice from him the Board has taken no decision on his complaint, it should be presumed that the Board has rejected the complaint. There is no such deeming provision contained in the aforesaid Act.

5.                  Since the appeals are not maintainable the same are dismissed.

Justice N.K. Sodhi

Presiding Officer

 

C.Bhattacharya

Member

 

R.N.Bhardwaj

Member