Appeal No. 4 of 2013. Case: 1. Onelife Capital Advisors Limited, 2. Mr. Thiruvidaimarudur Krishna, 3. Mr. Pandoo Naig, 4. Mr. A. P. Shukla, 5. Mr. Dhananjay Parikh, 6. Mr. T. S. Raghavan Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India. Securities and Exchange Board of India
| Case Number | Appeal No. 4 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellants: Mr. P. N. Modi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranjit Bhosale, Mr. Joby Mathew, Mr. Deepak Dhane, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Advocate |
| Judges | P. K. Malhotra, Member & Presiding Officer |
| Issue | Companies Act, 1956 |
| Judgement Date | January 24, 2013 |
| Court | Securities and Exchange Board of India |
Judgment:
P. K. Malhotra, Member & Presiding Officer
-
Appellant no. 1, namely, Onelife Capital Advisors Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Appellant no. 2 to 6 are its directors. The appellant company is a merchant banker and a stockbroker registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board). The company came out with a public issue in September/October 2011. On receipt of certain complaints with regard to non disclosure of important information and utilizing the money for purposes other than the purposes disclosed in the IPO, the Board carried out investigations and passed restraint order against the company and its directors vide order dated December 28, 2011 which, on an order passed by this Tribunal on January 20, 2012, was modified by an order dated February 15, 2012 passed by the whole time member of the Board.
-
The appellants have approached this Tribunal relating to this investigation on three earlier occasions, firstly, against the ex-parte ad-interim order dated December 28, 2011; again, against order dated February 15, 2012 and thirdly by way of miscellaneous application filed on December 26, 2012 which was withdrawn and the present appeal has been filed. The thrust of the appeal is that by the restraint order passed by the Board on December 28, 2011, the appellants are prohibited from doing any business which is adversely affecting interest of the company as well as the shareholders. Inspite of the fact that the appellants have provided necessary information to the Board, the Board has not passed any further order. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated December 28, 2011 be set aside and pending disposal of the appeal, its operation, qua the appellants, be stayed.
-
During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent Board has passed an order on January 16, 2013 after considering the representations made by the appellants. In the said order, it is stated that the Board has completed investigations in the matter and would initiate appropriate action in accordance with law against the entities involved in the matter. It is further observed by the whole time member of the Board that no intervention is called for at this stage for either vacating the interim directions or modifying it. Therefore, he has confirmed the directions issued to the appellants in paragraph 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.8 and 14.9 of the ex-parte ad-interim order dated December 28, 2011. With...
To continue reading
Request your trial