9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranjit Shetty, Mr. Deepak Deshmukh, Advocates For The Interveners Mis. Application No. 130 of 2014 : Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranjit Shetty, Mr. Deepak Deshmukh, Advocates for Interveners Per : Jog Singh 1. Miscellaneous Application no. 88 of 2014 has been preferred by two entities, namely, QVT Fund LP and Quintessense Fund L. P. for intervention in the Appeal no. 72 of 2014 which has been filed by Zenith Infotech Ltd. and others before this Tribunal for quashing the impugned order dated April 11, 2014 passed by SEBI. Both these entities have been incorporated in the Cayman Islands as a limited partnership and have their registered office at c/o Intertrust Corporate Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the meanwhile, SEBI also passed an ex-parte ad interim order dated March 25, 2013 calling upon the appellants to deposit US$ 33.93 million within one month under the provisions of SEBI Act, 1992 read with relevant provisions of SCRA, 1956 even when the Hon'ble High Court and the learned City Civil Court were / are seized of the matter. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal by the appellants by way of Appeal no. 59 of 2013. After hearing the respondents and even QVT Fund LP and Quintessense Fund L. P. (Interveners) at that stage, this Tribunal quashed the said interim order with the following directions by order dated July 23, 2013 :- "29. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. During the pendency of this appeal, the SEBI decided the case on 11th April, 2014. The order dated 11th April, 2014 passed by the SEBI has been challenged before the SAT and the SAT is to hear the appeal on 20th August, 2014. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that this appeal has become infructuous. The appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. It is clarified that it would also be open to the SAT to pass an appropriate interim order in accordance with law so as to protect the interest of the concerned investors." 6. As SEBI has passed the present impugned order on April 11, 2014, again calling upon the appellants to furnish bank guarantee of an amount of US$ 33.93 million in Indian Rupees equivalent, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be impleaded parties in the present appeal also. 10. Other two interveners, who claim to be Bondholders, namely, QVT Fund LP and Quintessense Fund L. P., in Miscellaneous Application no. 130 of 2014 for intervention simply submit in para 4 of the miscellaneous application that ".... The interveners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the Intervention Application being IA No. 88 of 2014 ("IA") filed by the Bondholders in the above Appeal and the compilation of documents filed alongwith the IA as if the same have been filed by the Interveners." The contentions raised and submissions made therein be treated as part and parcel of the present application. 11. In the premises of four applicants in these two intervention applications claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued, listed and traded outside India. Therefore, as per Indian Laws, the expression 'investors in securities market in India' would not include holders of foreign securities like FCCBs in the instant case. 14. It is not disputed that the FCCBs are a foreign security, issued and traded outside India. In the case in hand, it is an admitted position that the Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), who is the Trustee of said FCCBs, has already approached the Hon'ble Bombay High Court against the appellants. In addition to High Court proceedings, the Interveners have also approached learned City Civil Court at Dindoshi by S. C. Suit No. 2034 of 2011. Further, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also passed order in respect of appellant company on December ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertinent to note that firstly, there was no opposition from the appellants at that stage; and secondly, the same cannot be treated as a precedent for all times to come. Summing up the position, thus, we reiterate the settled legal position that a wrong, having come to our notice, cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. The shareholders / bondholders, who were never heard or impleaded as a necessary or even as a proper party in proceedings before the SEBI at the first instance, cannot be allowed to be implanted as interveners by this Appellate Tribunal in the ordinary course. Therefore, these two miscellaneous applications are hereby dismissed. No costs. Registry is directed to list the main appeal for admission / final hearing on January, 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
