TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tandi to intervene in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, permitting intervention by shareholders or Bondholders in any appeal filed by a company against the order passed by SEBI / Stock Exchanges would mean opening a flood-gate and in such a case it would be impossible to dispose of the appeals filed before this Tribunal. It is true that in a given case, the Tribunal may be inclined to allow an application for intervention on behalf of an affected party but it cannot be generalized. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a limited partnership and have their registered office at c/o Intertrust Corporate Services (Cayman) Limited, 190 Elgin Avenue, George Town, Grand Cayman, KY1-9005, Cayman Islands. Both the entities are praying for impleadment in the appeal by claiming to be the Bondholders who are stated to have invested in the Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds, hereinafter referred to as FCCBs , floated by the appellant company, hereinafter referred to as Zenith in the years 2011- 2012. 2. Similarly, the shareholders, namely, QVT Mauritius West Fund and Quintessence Mauritius West Fund have also filed Miscellaneous Application no. 130 of 2014 for intervention almost on the same ground. 3. Zenith issued US$ 33 million FCCBs in the first instanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to Respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration in accordance with law by supplying a copy of the complaint to the Appellants in advance and also by deciding the jurisdictional issues raised by the Appellants in the present Appeal before hand. Ordered accordingly. 30. The matter is, thus, remanded to Respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks, from receiving a copy of this order. We hope that the Appellants as well as other affected parties whom the Respondent No. 1 may feel appropriate to summon, shall cooperate with Respondent No. 1 in expediting the matter. All other cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the appellants to furnish bank guarantee of an amount of US$ 33.93 million in Indian Rupees equivalent, the same has been challenged by the appellants in the present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard all the learned counsel for the parties including learned senior counsel for the proposed interveners and we are of the view that the two miscellaneous applications in question for intervention are misconceived and are liable to be dismissed. 8. The interveners in these two miscellaneous applications submit that the Bondholders, namely, QVT Fund LP and Quintessense Fund L. P. invested in 2011 FCCBs and 2012 FCCBs which were floated by the appellants during the relevant period. The two Bondholders also submit that they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arcel of the present application. 11. In the premises of four applicants in these two intervention applications claim to be affected by SEBI s order in as much as they have suffered considerable losses as a result of sharp price fall in the scrip of the company. They also submit that in the year 2011, the present Interveners have also filed a suit, being suit no. 2034 of 2011 against the Company, inter alia, for an injunction against the Company, its promoters, Managing Director, directors, officers, agents, employees and servants from in any way acting, pursuing, or taking any further steps contrary to the Explanatory Statement dated 27th December 2010 and the resolution passed pursuant to such Explanatory Statement at the Extraordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suit No. 2034 of 2011. Further, Hon ble Bombay High Court has also passed order in respect of appellant company on December 13, 2013 against which an appeal was preferred before Division Bench which was dismissed on April 23, 2014. Appellants also seem to have preferred special leave petition before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India which is still pending. 15. In the face of the above pendency of matter before the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as learned City Civil Court at Dindoshi, this Tribunal in the present appeal, is mainly concerned with the impugned order dated April 23, 2014 passed against the appellants. The issue regarding redemption of FCCBs is not directly before this Tribunal. The Tribunal is, therefore, of the considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
