IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Appeal No: 8 of 2006
Date of Decision
12/06/2006
Jimmy Jal Gazdar
…..Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India
….Respondent
Mr. M.S. Doctor, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Subhash Jha, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM
Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
R.N. Bhardwaj, Member
Per: Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)
By an interim order dated November 18, 2005, the wholetime member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short ‘the Board’) overruled the preliminary objections raised by the appellant and held that it had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice dated 05/02/2004 alleging some irregularities committed by the appellant under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter called ‘the Regulations’). What is contended by the appellant is that since the Regulations had been repealed by similar Regulations framed in the year 1997 the Board could not proceed under the old Regulations. It is also alleged that the Board before passing the impugned order did not afford the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant we are not inclined to entertain the appeal against the impugned order. The Board has only held that it has the jurisdiction to investigate into the alleged irregularities committed by the appellant under the Regulations. The appellant should plead its case before the Board on merits as well and let a final order be passed. In case the said order goes against the appellant, it would be open to him to challenge the same on all grounds available to him in accordance with law including the one that the Board did not have the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings. We are taking this view in the facts and circumstances of the case because we are of the opinion that all the disputes between the parties should be comprehensively decided by the Board and that they should not be allowed to have them adjudicated piecemeal.
In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-Justice N.K. SodhiPresiding OfficerSd/-R.N.BhardwajMember