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

In the matter of New Era Alkaloids & Exports Ltd

Mar 31, 2006
|
Orders : Orders of SAT

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

 

Appeal No: 57 of 2006

 

Date of Decision

31/03/2006

 

 

 

 

New Era Alkaloids & Exports Limited

…..Appellant

 

Versus

 

 

1. Bombay Stock Exchange Limited

 

2. Securities & Exchange Board of India

….Respondents

 

Mr.  S.K. Batra, Practicing Company Secretary for the appellant

Mr. P.N. Modi, Advocate with Mr. Sagar Divekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1

Mr. Ravi Hegde, Advocate with Mr. Pratik Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

 

CORAM

 

          C. Bhattacharya, Member

          R.N. Bhardwaj, Member

 

Per:    C. Bhattacharya, Member

1.                  The appeal in this case is against an order dated 17/10/2005 passed by the Whole Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The appellants had filed an appeal with SEBI against the letter dated April 30, 2004 issued to them by the Stock Exchange, Mumbai (BSE) whereby BSE had compulsorily delisted the securities of the company w.e.f. April 20, 2004.  The company had filed an appeal with SEBI against that decision of the BSE. 

2.                  In a hearing conducted by the Whole Time Member of SEBI on October 11, 2005 the authorized representative of the appellant company along with the representative of the BSE appeared before him. The impugned order records that the representatives  of both the parties had agreed that another opportunity of hearing will be given to the appellant company by the delisting committee of BSE and thereafter BSE shall consider the case of the appellant on merits and pass appropriate order.  The impugned order was thus issued by SEBI with the consent of both the parties.  Section 15T(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 clearly lays down that no appeal shall lie to this Tribunal from an order made by the Board with the consent of parties. In the above view, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

3.                  No order as to costs.


sd/-

C.Bhattacharya
Member

sd/-

R.N.Bhardwaj
Member

Date:   31/03/2006