9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Violation of natural justice in the order of refund. 2. Alleged forged signature on the agreement leading to oversubscription. 3. Mechanical dismissal of appeal by the appellate authority. 4. Non-listing of shares by the Bombay Stock Exchange. 5. Diversion of funds by the petitioner. 6. Challenge against SEBI's order and order of non-listing by the stock exchange. 7. Directions for the petitioner to refund the amount and create a charge on purchased properties. Analysis: 1. The petitioner raised concerns about the violation of natural justice in the order of refund issued by the appellate authority. The petitioner's advocate was unavailable during the initial hearing, leading to a subsequent appeal dismissal. The court highlighted the importance of a fair hearing but emphasized that the petitioner should not misuse procedural delays to the detriment of other parties involved. 2. Allegations of a forged signature on the agreement between the petitioner and another individual were brought up. The petitioner claimed that the signature in question was forged, questioning the basis of the action taken against them. The court noted the significance of authentic documentation in legal proceedings and the need for clarity regarding the financial transactions involved. 3. The petitioner criticized the appellate order for being mechanical, merely dismissing the appeal due to a prior dismissal. This raised concerns about the thoroughness and fairness of the appellate process. The court acknowledged the need for a comprehensive review of appeals to ensure justice is served. 4. The Bombay Stock Exchange's decision to decline listing the petitioner's shares was challenged. The petitioner argued that the non-listing decision was not final as an appeal was pending. The court considered the implications of non-listing on the validity of the share allotment, citing relevant legal precedents. 5. The court addressed the issue of fund diversion by the petitioner, which was contrary to SEBI's directive to refund the amounts received from the public issue. The petitioner had utilized the funds to purchase properties, raising questions about compliance with regulatory orders and the preservation of financial assets. 6. Challenges against SEBI's order and the stock exchange's non-listing decision were discussed. The court outlined conditions for the petitioner to revive the appeals, emphasizing the importance of adhering to regulatory directives and restoring the financial status quo. 7. The court issued directions for the petitioner to refund the entire amount and create a charge on the purchased properties. Stringent terms were set, including a deposit requirement and restrictions on property dealings to ensure compliance with regulatory orders and the restoration of financial integrity. The court emphasized the need for accountability and adherence to legal obligations in financial matters.
|
