TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was a Director of the Company during the entire period 01.04.2009 to 11.08.2011 during which the RPS was issued and monies collected from the investors. As such he was present during the entire period and therefore no benefit of apportioning the time period is available to him as in the case of Mr. Nandi. The accountability of a Director to the actions of the Company is now well settled in law as particularly set out in the judgment passed in the matter of N. Narayanan vs Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India [ 2013 (4) TMI 652 - SUPREME COURT ] Reliance placed by Counsel for the appellant in K.K. Ahuja [ 2009 (7) TMI 758 - SUPREME COURT ] and Rahul H. Shah [ 2004 (9) TMI 702 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ares ('RPS' for short) with interest at the rate of 15% from the date when the repayment became due till the date of actual payment. 2. The facts relevant to the matter are as follows:- The Company admittedly collected a total amount of Rs. 11.46 crore by means of issuing RPS during the period 01.04.2009 to 11.08.2011 to 13612 investors. Since the number of investors exceeded 49 RPS issue is a deemed public issue which could have been issued following the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as well as SEBI Act and Regulations. It is admitted by the Company that the said amount had been collected and they refunded Rs. 5.49 crore (approximately) till the date of their personal hearing before the WTM of SEBI on April 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Kumar Nandi in Appeal No. 47 of 2017 (supra) who was Director of the Company only upto 15.05.2010, appellant in the present appeal was Director during 2007-2013. Further, even subsequent record of the Registrar of Companies shows that he continued to be a Director of the Company. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the ratio of this Tribunal's order in the case of Manoj Agarwal vs SEBI [Appeal No. 66 of 2016 decided on 14.07.2017] whereby it was held that a Director is accountable for the actions of the Company is applicable in the present matter. 7. We find no merit in the arguments of the appellant. The appellant was a Director of the Company during the entire period 01.04.2009 to 11.08.2011 during which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
