Mar 16, 2006
|
Orders :
Orders of SAT
IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Appeal No: 92 of 2005
|
Date of Decision
|
16/03/2006
|
|
Dilip S. Pendse
|
…..Appellant
|
|
Versus
|
|
|
Securities & Exchange Board of India
|
….Respondent
|
|
|
|
Mr. Santosh Pawar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Ms. Daya Gupta, 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)
Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short “the Act”) is to the order dated 22/12/2003 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter called “the Board”) whereby the appellant was found to have violated Regulation 3 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (for short “the Regulations”) and was directed to disassociate himself from the securities market for a period of six months from the date of the order. He was further directed not to deal in the securities henceforth for the aforesaid period. The appellant has been found to have indulged in insider trading which is prohibited under the Regulations.
2. It is not in dispute that while admitting this appeal the Tribunal did not pass any interim order and there was no stay of the operation thereof. The period of six months for which the appellant has been debarred from dealing in the securities is long over. We are, therefore, of the view that the appeal has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly.
3. Before parting, we may mention that Mr. Santosh Pawar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made a request for adjournment in this case. He sought adjournment on the ground that he wanted to amend the grounds of appeal and also correct the errors that had crept in the memorandum of appeal already filed. A similar request was made on behalf of the appellant on 24/01/2006 and on his request the case was adjourned for today. Today again, the same request is being made. Since the appellant did not take any steps during the intervening period to amend the memorandum of appeal nor has he corrected the errors which according to him had crept in, we have declined the request. No costs.
sd/-
Justice N.K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer
sd/-
C.Bhattacharya
Member
sd/-
R.N.Bhardwaj
Member
Date: 16/03/2006