In the matter of:

Tactfull Investment Ltd                                                Appellant

Vs.

Securities & Exchange Board of India                       Respondent
 

APPEARANCE:

Dr. Rajnish Pandey
Vice President
Tactful Investment Ltd                                               for Appellant

Ms Poonam A Bamba
Division Chief, SEBI

Mr. Santosh K Shukla
Asstt. legal Adviser, SEBI                                          for Respondent
 

This appeal is directed against the Respondent�s classification of the Appellant as a vanishing company, in the public notice dated 14.09.1999. The said public notice was reportedly directed to the companies and their promoters and directors to whom specific show cause notices issued by the Respondent were returned undelivered, with a view to give them another opportunity to explain their view point before deciding any course of action. The promoters, directors and companies mentioned in the public notice were thus given opportunity to explain and if so desired, to furnish reply to the show cause notice. It has been stated that some companies, etc., had responded to the notice.
 

At the time of hearing Dr. Rajnish Pandey, representing the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is not a vanishing company by the standards followed by the Respondent and it has already explained its position with details to the Respondent.
 

Ms Poonam A Bamba representing the Respondent submitted that the Appellant vide its letter dated 25.1.2000 and letter dated 25.2.2000 had informed the Respondent that it is not a vanishing company that it is functional, and requested for an opportunity to explain its position. According to Ms Bamba, the Respondent had been receiving representations from the companies in the aftermath of its directions dated 17.12.1999, and the issue regarding such companies was deliberated in the meeting of the Co-ordination and Monitoring Committee held on 1.6.2000. According to Ms Bamba the Committee has decided that in such cases the concerned companies may be given an opportunity of hearing before the Chairman, SEBI and to submit the compliance report from the concerned stock exchange and the Registrar of Companies and on being satisfied that the company is functional, the Chairman was empowered to revoke the direction.
 

Ms Bamba further submitted that at the instance of the Respondent, the Delhi Stock Exchange had conducted physical inspection of the registered office of the Appellant at its new address. The DSE had informed the Respondent that the Appellant has filed the Annual Reports (Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss account, etc.,) cash Flow Statement and Distribution Schedule, for the year 1996-97 till 1998-99 on 20.9.2000. The DSE had also informed the Respondent that the Appellant is existing at its new address at A-124/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi 52.
 

Ms Bamba submitted that as decided by the Co-ordination and Monitoring Committee in its meeting on 1.6.2000 it has been decided by the Respondent that when a company has satisfied SEBI about its compliance with all statutory filing requirements with the Registrar of Companies and the listing requirements, the name of the company may be removed from the list of vanishing companies. She submitted that the case of the Appellant is at present under consideration of the Respondent and the Appellant is also aware of the same. She submitted that in view of the above decision of Co-ordination and Monitoring Committee, the Respondent is seized of the issue and as such the appeal is premature.
 

During the course of the argument Dr. Rajnish Pandey also submitted that the Appellant has represented to the Respondent seeking removal of its name from the list of vanishing companies and the matter is being pursued.
 

It is thus evident that the matter is now under consideration of the Respondent and the Appellant is also pursuing the matter with the Respondent. Therefore it is premature now to agitate the matter before the Tribunal. I do not consider it necessary at this stage to go into the question of maintainability and the merits of the appeal etc., in view of the submission made by the parties that the issue is now under consideration of the Respondent.
 

In the light of the submission made by the parties, it is felt that the appeal is premature. The appeal is therefore dismissed.