Misc. Application No. 77/78/79/80/81 of 2013 & Appeal No. 142/143/144/145/146 of 2013. Case: 1. Manilal D. Kotecha, 2. Teakwood Management Services Pvt. Ltd., 3. White Water Management Services Pvt. Ltd., 4. Veena N. Kotecha, 5. Chess Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Case Number:Misc. Application No. 77/78/79/80/81 of 2013 & Appeal No. 142/143/144/145/146 of 2013
Party Name:1. Manilal D. Kotecha, 2. Teakwood Management Services Pvt. Ltd., 3. White Water Management Services Pvt. Ltd., 4. Veena N. Kotecha, 5. Chess Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India
Counsel:For Appellants: Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Advocate with Ms. Akshaya Bhansali and Mr. Shubhadeep Choudhuri, Advocates Mr. Ankit Lohia, Advocate with Ms. Akshaya Bhansali, Mr. Manish Chhangani and Mr. Shubhadeep Choudhuri, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Ms. Harshada Nagare, Advocate
Judges:J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer, Jog Singh, Member and A. S. Lamba, Member
Issue:Securities and Exchange Board of India Act
Judgement Date:September 03, 2013
Court:Securities and Exchange Board of India
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer

  1. All these Appeals, nos. 142, 143, 144, 145 and 146 of 2013 with Misc. Applications no. 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81 of 2013 (seeking condonation of the delay), have been filed by the appellants mainly seeking a direction to stay the operation of the impugned order dated July 28, 2009 by which ad-interim exparte order dated April 23, 2009 was confirmed.

  2. After hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that Appeals along with Misc. Applications can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent to pass a final order in the pending proceedings within a period of four months from today. Both the parties agree to such an order and all the learned counsel for the parties undertake that their respective client would co-operate in expeditious finalization of the proceedings in question. Ordered accordingly.

  3. Further, one of the grievances of the appellants is that they may be permitted an opportunity to cross-examination certain witnesses who are deemed necessary by the appellants in the matter. In some cases already an application has been moved before appropriate authority seeking cross-examination of the said witnesses, while in others such application is yet to be filed by the appellants. We, therefore, make it...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL