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

In the matter of Keyoor M Bakshi.

Oct 15, 2004
|
Orders : Orders of SAT
 

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

 MUMBAI

 

Date of Hearing

22.9.2004

 

Date of Decision

15.10.2004

Appeal No. 167/2003

  

In the matter of:

Keyoor M. Bakshi

Appellant – Represented by

 

Shri Navin Pahwa, Company Secretary

 

Versus

 

Securities & Exchange Board

Respondent – Represented by

of India

Shri Kumar Desai, Advocate

Coram:

Justice Kumar Rajaratnam, Presiding Officer

Dr. B. Samal, Member

N.L. Lakhanpal, Member

Per: Justice Kumar Rajaratnam, Presiding Officer

 

  1. The appeal is taken up with consent of parties.

     

     

  2. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent. The appellant challenges the impugned order which reads as follows:

     

    "In view of the above, it is necessary that appropriate directions be issued by SEBI in the interest of investors and the safety and security of the capital market. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under Section 4(3) read with Section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act and Regulation 11 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, I, hereby direct that M/s. Vrushti Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, namely Shri Shailesh Thakkar and Shri Keyoor M. Bakshi shall dissociate themselves from the capital market for a period of 5 years and that the aforesaid persons shall not deal in securities in any manner whatsoever for a period of 5 years."

     

  3. Various contentions were raised before the Tribunal. However, it is not necessary to go into each of the contentions raised by the appellant as we wish to dispose of this matter on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

     

     

  4. It is submitted that the appellant was never served with any show cause notice nor was any opportunity given to the appellant before the impugned order was passed. It was further submitted that the appellant is a nominal director and was not involved in the day today affairs of the company.

     

     

  5. It appears to us from the records placed before us that the appellant was not served with any show cause notice. In that view of the matter, we have no alternative except to set aside the impugned order in so far as the appellant is concerned and direct the respondent to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. All contentions are left open in the event the respondent wishes to issue a fresh show cause notice.

     

     

  6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs.

     

 

Justice Kumar Rajaratnam

Presiding Officer

N.L. Lakhanpal

Member

Dr. B. Samal

Member

 

 

Place: Mumbai

Date:15.10.2004

 

//sr041012