TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders vide communication dated 23rd January, 2018 the same is challenged before the Tribunal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed as the appellant could not have raised the same issue vide complaints after complaints before SEBI and then thought it fit to challenge the last of the communication. If the appellant was aggrieved by the speaking order of the SEBI dated 31st May, 2017, it could have very well filed appeal before this Tribunal at that point of time. Rectification of the register - HELD THAT:- The history of the case of ADESH KAUR VERSUS EICHER MOTORS LIMITED AND ORS. [ 2018 (8) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT] would show that NCLT is competent to issue direction for rectification of the register of Eicher under section 111A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 shares were transferred by Brescon to the appellant which were subsequently sold by the appellant in the year 2007. However, as regards the remaining 900 shares, Link Intime informed that in the year 2012 duplicate shares were issued in favour of Mr. Sharad Negandhi. Said Mr. Negandhi had dematerialized those shares. The newspaper advertisement and pan card of Mr. Negandhi was also submitted for the purpose of issuance of duplicate share certificate. In the circumstances, the appellant filed complaint with Kherwadi police station, Mumbai. The police investigation revealed that beneficiary account of Negandhi was closed and he had transferred the shares of Eicher to one Mr. Vimal R. Kapadia. Thus, the shares were fraudulently transferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was set aside by this Tribunal and necessary direction could only be given by an order of NCLT to be passed under section 59 of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. Thereafter, second complaint was filed by the appellant on 16th June, 2017 with the SEBI for the same grievance with a request to act by exercising the powers under the SEBI Act. SEBI vide letter dated 31st May, 2017 reiterated the reasons already forwarded to the appellant advising it that it may also approach NCLT in this regard. Subsequently, the order of NCLT was set aside by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLAT') vide order dated 29th August, 2017 and, therefore, the appellant filed third complaint with SEBI dated 20th December, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Shri Pradeep Sancheti submits that as per the own contention of the appellant, his first complaint was disposed of by SEBI long back on 31st May, 2017. Thereafter the appellant went on to file second and third complaint on the same grounds with SEBI. While the last of the order is impugned in this appeal, the appellant is commenting on the reasoning recorded by SEBI in its order dated 31st May, 2017 passed in first complaint. He therefore submits that the appeal itself is not maintainable. He further submitted that in the case of Adesh Kaur (supra) NCLT has issued directions for rectification of the register under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 and, therefore, he submits that on these two grounds the appeal is liable to be rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
