9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Fifty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) on the Appellant for contravention of the provisions contained in Regulation 10 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Takeover Regulations, 1997). From the pleadings it appears that the Respondent conducted an investigation into the buying, selling and dealings in the scrip of Axon InfoTech Ltd. (Axon) for the period from March 17, 2006 to September 19, 2006. The investigation revealed that the Appellant M/s. Octant Industries Ltd., earlier known as Kushal Software Ltd. alongwith seven others namely: 1. Mr. Giriraj Kishore Agarwal 2. M/s. Kushagra Software Limited (Presently M/s. Concurrent (I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directors of the Appellant company and that they were never informed by the Respondent or given notice or given the opportunity to explain their case before passing the impugned order. It is thus submitted by Shri Keyur Bhakshi, learned authorized representative for the Appellant company, that the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. No other ground is taken in the appeal or pressed at the time of oral hearing. 3. We have also heard Shri Shyam Mehta, learned senior counsel for the Respondent who appears along with Shri Mihir Mody and Mr. Pratham V. Masurekar. Shri Mehta submits that it is only the name of the Appellant company that has changed from that of Kushal Software Ltd. to M/s. Octant Industries Ltd. The ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been passed in respect of eight entities/persons fastening them with equal liability of Rs. 12,57,500/-, of which four seem to have already complied with it and the other three, namely, Giriraj Kishore Agarwal, M/s. Golden Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Shreeji Herbal Ltd. and M/s. Handful Investrade Pvt. Ltd. (HIPL) have challenged the same before this Tribunal and the same has since been dismissed by this Tribunal. 5. The appeal, thus, being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed. The Appellant is granted two months' time to deposit the amount in question with the Respondent in terms of the impugned order dated February 4, 2013 failing which the Respondent would be at liberty to recover the same with interest by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
