At, SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JOG SINGH
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. C.K.G. NAIR
For the Appellants: Vinay Chauhan, Dipakar Livingstone, K.C. Jacob, i/b Corporate Law Chambers India, Advocates. For the Respondents: Pulkit Sukhramani, i/b The Law Point, Advocates.
Jog Singh, Member (Oral)
Appeal Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45, 56, 57 and 58 of 2015
1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants namely Regenix Drugs Limited and its directors challenging the order passed by the Whole Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’ for short) on November 10, 2014 directing them to refund the money in question to the allottees with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The appellants are stated to have violated the provisions of Section 73 read with Section 67(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 and also various provisions of SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 (‘DIP Guidelines’ for short). Certain violations regarding SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 (‘ICDR Regulations’ for short) were also alleged to have been committed by the appellants.
2. Both the parties agree that during the pendency of these appeals the appellants have preferred settlement application dated November 30, 2016 for amicable resolution of the issue. Accordingly, the terms of settlement were in-principle approved by the HPAC of SEBI on March 20, 2017 and appellants have also complied with the terms of settlement, inter alia, by paying Rs. 35,20,000/- towards the settlement charges and Rs. 9,17,640/- towards cost of legal expenses. Pursuant to the terms of Settlement appellants have also opened an escrow account remitting an amount of Rs. 93,70,653/- in Axis Bank. These facts are not disputed by learned counsel for SEBI.
3. In view of this admitted position the Tribunal accords its approval under Regulation 16(2) of the SEBI (Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings) Regulation, 2014.
4. All these appeals accordingly stand disposed of in terms of above settlement. Similarly, Miscellaneous Application Nos. 120 to 126 of 2017 also stand disposed of.
Appeal No. 181 of 2015 with Misc. Application No. 146 of 2015
5. Misc. Application No. 146 of 2015 has been filed for condonation of 53 days delay in filing Appeal No. 181 of 2015 in question. For the reasons stated in this Miscellaneous Application, the delay is condoned, the Miscellaneous Application is, accordingly, disposed of.
6. This appeal has been preferred by one investor namely Dr. R. Rukmani to intervene in Appeal Nos. 42 of 2015. Mr. Dipakar Livingstone, learned counsel for the intervener fai
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
rly states that the appeal has become infructuous in view of the terms of settlement in the aforesaid bunch of appeals. 7. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of as having become infructuous in view of settlement in the aforesaid bunch of appeal. No costs.