At, SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN AGARWALA
By, PRESIDING OFFICER
By, THE HONOURABLE DR. C.K.G. NAIR
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.T. JOSHI
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Appellant: Arindan Das, Rumeli Sarkar, Advocates. For the Respondent: Anubhav Ghosh, Rashi Dalmia, Advocates i/b The Law Point.
Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1. The Whole Time Member (hereinafter referred to as ‘WTM’) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI’) passed an order dated November 1, 2016 holding that the company Cemendia Infrastructures Ltd. and its directors had illegally collected money through NCDs in violation of public issue norms and consequently, the WTM issued various directions, namely, for refund of the amount collected alongwith interest which was required to be paid jointly and severally by the company and its directors. The appellants were also restrained from accessing the securities market and were also restrained from associating with any public listed company till such time the refund was made.
2. Since the amount was not paid recovery proceedings were initiated. The appellants are directors of the company who have been found to be officers in default and were held to be liable to recover the amount jointly and severally.
3. The appellants have questioned the veracity of the minutes of the proceedings dated December 9, 2019 before the Recovery Officer which order is nothing but an adjournment of the proceedings at the instance of the appellant.
4. The contention of the appellants is that as per the order of the WTM only Anita Ghosh Choudhary, Subrata Samanta and Gora Chand Sarkar were liable for violation of the public issue norms and were held to be liable for refund of the entire amount. It was urged that the recovery against the appellants pursuant to the impugned order was wholly incorrect and, therefore, they should be absolved from appearing before the Recovery Officer.
5. All the submissions may be raised before the Recovery Officer. If so raised, the Recovery Officer will deal with it. We may also point out
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
that the order dated November 1, 2016 has not been challenged by the appellants before us. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order of the recovery officer at this stage. Dismissed.