TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability. In the case of Pritha Bag [ 2019 (2) TMI 1742 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI] also finding that one Late Indranath Daw was the Managing Director of the defaulting company, the director Pritha Bag was exonerated by this Tribunal. Since facts are distinguishable the ratio of the same cannot be applied in the present case. The circular of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated July 29, 2011 is also on the similar line indicating as to who can be held as an officer in default. Considering all the materials on record the appeal is dismissed. Whether GIIPL did not issue SOCDs to the private entities but only to the two companies? - HELD THAT:- A new plea is raised before this Tribunal that GIIPL had a Managing Director. The appellant himself was promoter / director of GIIPL as well as of the group companies and therefore in the facts of the case he submitted that appeal be dismissed. Appeal is liable to be dismissed. No plea was taken before the WTM that the GIIPL was run by a Managing Director. The appellant was admittedly promoter cum director of GIIPL as well as of the group companies. Insofar as a case of Sanjeeb Kumar is concerned we find that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... securities would be a public issue attracting the provisions of the Companies Act as well as of ICDR Regulations. 5. It appears that GIIPL or its representative did not appear before SEBI despite the efforts to serve notices upon them by respondent SEBI. The learned counsel for the respondent SEBI adverted the attention of the Tribunal to the fact noted in the interim order dated March 4, 2015 which inter alia records that as the show cause notice could not be delivered to the GIIPL, SEBI officers visited the registered premises of the company on November 25, 2015 and found that the office did not exists at the address. It also records that a crime was already registered by Odisha Police regarding the money raising activities of the GIIPL and that the Supreme Court of India had directed Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the investigation in the overall affairs of the GIIPL. 6. Other noticees including the present appellant Mr. Debasis Padhy and Panchanan Pradhan appeared before the WTM. They placed their respective cases before the WTM. The WTM, however, passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. Appeal No. 6 of 2017:- 7. Appellant Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant cannot take benefit of other provisions or decisions of this Tribunal. 11. According to us, it cannot be gainsaid that the appellant is the promoter of GIIPL. He was admittedly the director during the relevant period. The appellant has not placed any case before the respondent SEBI that any other person was Managing Director of GIIPL and placed a new case before us. He was given sufficient opportunity to put his case before respondent SEBI as detailed (supra). Section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956 reads as under:- 73(1) Every company intending to offer shares or debentures to the public for subscription by the issue of a prospectus shall, before such issue, make an application to one or more recognised stock exchanges for permission for the shares or debentures intending to be so offered to be dealt with in the stock exchange or each such stock exchange. (1A) Where a prospectus, whether issued generally or not, states that an application under sub-section (1) has been made for permission for the shares or debentures offered thereby to be dealt in one or more recognized stock exchanges, such prospectus shall state the name of the stock exchange or, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be applied in the present case. 15. The circular of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated July 29, 2011 is also on the similar line indicating as to who can be held as an officer in default. Considering all the materials on record the appeal is dismissed. Appeal No. 17 of 2017: 16. Appellant Panchanan Pradhan vide the written submissions dated August 25, 2015 and August 19, 2016 submitted before the WTM that GIIPL did not issue SOCDs to the private entities but only to the two companies (supra). He had not participated in the affairs of the GIIPL directly or indirectly in the issue of SOCDs. He has not mobilized funds through the issue of SOCDs and therefore he should be exonerated. 17. The WTM found that present appellant Panchanan Pradhan was original subscriber to the Memorandum of Association as well as promoter of the GIIPL. He was director during the relevant period of GIIPL and moreover director / promoter in the group companies of GIIPL to whom the SOCDs were issued which, in turn, were issued to the number of private entities as detailed (supra). Therefore, applying the reasons as applied to the cases of Mr. Debasis Padhy and other noticees simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
