9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of hearing and there is no allegation that undue adjournment was sought by the appellant. Adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the appellant. The impugned order is thus violative of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Two orders of the same date has been passed by the delisting committee - From a comparison of the two orders we find that certain more facts have been inserted in the second order of 26th June, 2018 primarily to cover the lacuna that was glaring and apparent in the first order dated 26th June, 2018. We are of the opinion that once a signed order dated 26th June, 2018 was sent by the delisting committee a second order of the same date could not have been pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the appeal is, that the trading in the equity shares of the Company was suspended with effect from 20th April, 2016. Since the trading of the shares was not revoked inspite of granting opportunity, the Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 1st June, 2018 to show cause as to why the equity shares of the Company should not be compulsorily delisted from the platform of the Exchange. Since no reply was received, the respondents fixed 26th June, 2018 for hearing on which date the Managing Director of the Company sought time to make a representation as his Advocate was unable to attend the hearing. Without granting time to the appellant to make adequate representation, the impugned order dated 26th June, 2018 was passed compulsorily de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violation of the principles of natural justice. In so far as the two orders being passed on the same date it was contended that an incorrect order dated 26th June, 2018 was sent by the covering letter dated 3rd July, 2018 and when the error was realized the correct order dated 26th June, 2018 was sent on 23rd July, 2018. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the show cause notice was issued on 1st June, 2018. The first date of hearing before the delisting committee was fixed on 26th June, 2018. The request for adjournment was only made for 26th June, 2018. The denial on the part of the delisting committee in order to enable the appellant to be represented by an Advocate is against the settled principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat once a signed order dated 26th June, 2018 was sent by the delisting committee a second order of the same date could not have been passed without recalling the earlier order and without issuing notice to the parties which apparently in the instant case has not been done. The passing of the second order dated 26th June, 2018 incorporating further facts amounts to interpolation in the order. 10. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the impugned order of the delisting committee dated 26th June, 2018 as forwarded to the appellant by the letter dated 3rd July, 2018 and 23rd July, 2018 are quashed on payment of cost of ₹ 1 lakh. The matter is remitted to the delisting committee to decide the matter afresh after granting an opportun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
