w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

RMG Alloy Steel Ltd. v/s Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL EXCHANGE INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74100AP1999PLC031191

Company & Directors' Information:- RMG ALLOY STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27100GJ1993PLC020358

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL EXCHANGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U27100TG1999PTC033099

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2009PLC022300

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- R.M.G. PRIVATE LIMITED. [Under Liquidation] CIN = U51311KL1996PTC010269

Company & Directors' Information:- R P K ALLOY STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104TN1989PTC016867

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. ALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28111UP1995PTC018405

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- J D ALLOY STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27106CH1981PTC004509

Company & Directors' Information:- B D K ALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U27106KA1973PTC002355

    Appeal No. 149 of 2013

    Decided On, 17 September 2013

    At, SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal

    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Sameer Pandit, Advocate with Ms. Ankita Godbole, Advocate. For the Respondent: Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate with Ms. Najma Shaikh, Manish Acharya, Advocates.

Judgment Text

Jog Singh (Oral)

1. The Appellant is mainly aggrieved by Respondent order dated June 4, 2013 passing interim directions against the Appellant in as much as it failed to reduce promoters shareholding from 87.26% to that of 75% in terms of amended Rule 19(A) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (‘SCRR’ for short) which was brought into force with effect from June 4, 2010.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Sameer Pandit submits that there are already two orders passed by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (‘BIFR’ for short) dated September 23, 2008 read with latest order dated March 23, 2012 in respect of the Appellant. These two orders passed by BIFR are stated to be in contradiction of the directions passed by the Respondent on June 4, 2013 in respect of more than 100 companies, including the Appellant.

3. At the outset, Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, learned senior counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice the contents of paragraph 21 of order dated June 4, 2013 by which the Appellant is required to submit reply before SEBI and make grievances good over there as per law. To that extent, it is submitted that the present appeal is infructuous.

4. Heard both the counsel for the parties and we are of the considered opinion that the Appellant should approach SEBI with a detailed representation bringing two orders of BIFR and other relevant provisions of the law to their knowledge. In such an eventuality, SEBI shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant and try to resolve the matter in a harmonious manner by duly taking into consideration the two BIFR orders and other laws, rules, regulations governing the case in hand.

5. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that there is no need for the Appellant to file a fresh representation in response to the order dated June 4, 2013 and the present appeal itself may be treated as an exhaustive representation on behalf of the Appellant. Considering this to be reasonable submission, we direct Respondent to dispose of this representation within a period of one month from today after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant as per law.

6. In the meanwhile, we hope that no further coercive steps shall be

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

taken against the Appellant by the Respondent. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed by the Tribunal on the merit of the case. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands disposed of at admission stage itself with no order as to costs.