9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition assails the impugned notice dated 09.05.2018, and a subsequent notice dated 19.05.2018 (Annexure-P1 Colly.) issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the extent that it includes the name of the petitioners as Promoter of Lumax Automotive Systems Limited. The petitioners have also prayed for the relief to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to remove the name of the petitioners from the "Promoter Group" of Lumax Automotive Systems Limited and reclassify the petitioners as "public group category". 2. The petitioners have taken various grounds to challenge the impugned action of the respondents, however, during the pendency of the instant writ petition, respondent No.3 while presenting a brief synop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... informed respondent No.3 that the petitioner-company was already wound up and a copy of order dated 16.10.2017, passed in Company Petition No.829/2016 by this court was brought to the notice of respondent No.3. The said respondent noticed that the status of the company on MCA website was shown as "Under Liquidation". Respondent No.3 thereafter, had taken corrective measures and advised the depositories to unfreeze the company's promoters' demat accounts. 5. According to respondent No.3, SEBI's Regulation 24 of the Delisting Regulations, 2009 would not have any application in the case of the petitioners. Respondent No. 3 in its brief synopsis has placed on record the following averments which are reproduced as under:- "..... 7. SEBI ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not have any application in the instant case, no further orders are necessary to be passed in the instant case. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, however, states that since on the basis of the averments made by respondent No.3, it is seen that the impugned notices were issued on account of incorrect facts, therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned notices deserve to be quashed. 9. The submission made by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has been opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and they state that once the legal position is clear, the Regulation 24 of Delisting Regulations, 2009 will not have any application, there is no neces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
