Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: sebi securities and exchange board of india or securities appellate tribunal sat Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.064 seconds)

Mar 29 2004 (TRI)

Cellular Operators Association Vs. Department of

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Mar-29-2004

..... of the involved parties that it defeats its basic objective of achieving a more liberal and equitably interconnection regime than what existing prior to its issuance. played the role of mediator and tried to get the parties to arrive at mutually agreeable terms on the basis of which the interconnection agreements could be finalized. there were 18 issues pending with the ..... the appellants, trai gave its determination on six issues that remained outstanding after its letter dated 13.11.2000 which was in complete departure from the role of trai as mediator which it had assumed until then. i have been taken through the grounds of appeal and i find that appellants had objected on the question of issue of revenue sharing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2004 (TRI)

First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of In ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Dec-03-2004

1. appeal is taken up with the consent of parties. a common order is also passed by consent in both appeals.2. in this appeal, the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by sebi dated 12th september 2002 wherein the registration granted to the first appellant as a broker & portfolio manager and to the second appellant as a sub-broker have been cancelled.3. both the sides agree to make their submissions on a preliminary issue as to whether regulation 29 of securities and exchange board of india (stock brokers and sub-brokers) regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "1992 regulation") is mandatory or directory.regulation 29, as it then was, reads as follows: "29 (1) on receipt of the report from the enquiry officer, the board shall consider the same and issue a show-cause notice as to why the penalty as it considers appropriate should not be imposed. (2) the stock-broker shall within twenty-one days of the date of the receipt of the show cause send a reply to the board. (3) the board after considering the reply to the show-cause notice, if received, shall as soon as possible but not later than thirty days from the receipt of the reply, if any, pass such order as it deems fit. (4) every order passed under sub-regulation (3), shall be self-contained and give reasons for the conclusions stated therein including justification of the penalty imposed by that order. (5) the board shall send a copy of the order under sub-regulation (3) to the stock-broker, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2004 (TRI)

Sebi Vs. Cauvery Software Engg. Systems

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Jan-09-2004

1.1 m/s. cauvery software engg. systems ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'cauvery') had come out with a public issue of 45,00,000 equity shares of rs.10/- each for cash at par, aggregating to rs.4.50 crores in november 1991, to finance the setting up of a software development centre at bangalore in the government sponsored stp. cauvery had entered into an mou with golden age software technologies pvt ltd. (gastech) for using each other's premises and alliance in trading, hardware solutions, imaging and systems integration software programming. gastech which is located inside the seepz zone has exported software to switzerland and france.1.2 the shareholding pattern of cauvery as obtained from bse and nse is as follows :____________________________________________________________________________________sr category bse nseno (as on dec 3, 1999) (as on dec 4, 2000)____________________________________________________________________________________1.unit trust of india 7,01,900 2.16 49,900 0.15 banks 3,00,000 0.92 800 0.01 bodies 1,33,43,130 40.89 23,35,530 7.154.promoters, 0.00 30 0.005.public 1,82,79,970 56.03 3,02,38,740 92.69 grand total 3,26,25,000 100.00 3,26,25,000 100.00____________________________________________________________________________________ 1.3 as per the above shareholding pattern, the promoters and directors of cauvery had nil / negligible shareholding. the number of shares held by other corporate bodies had declined substantially from 1,33,43,130 shares to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 02 2004 (TRI)

Sebi Vs. Shri A.L. Shilotri

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Jan-02-2004

1. shri avadhoot l shilotri (hereinafter referred to as "shri shilotri") was the president and chief executive officer of niskalp investment and trading company limited (hereinafter referred to as "nitcl"), then a virtually wholly owned subsidiary of tata finance limited (hereinafter referred to as "tfl") during the period 6.2.2001 to 20.7.2001. immediately, prior to this period, he was the vice president (investments) of tfl. nitcl is an investment company incorporated under the companies act, 1956. the shares of tfl are listed on the stock exchange, mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "bse') and the national stock exchange of india ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "nse"). 1. the securities and exchange board of india (hereinafter referred to as "sebi") ordered preliminary investigation on 28.08.01 into the alleged manipulation and insider trading in the shares of tfl by shri j.e. talaulicar. 2. the preliminary investigation revealed that shri j e talaulicar (hereinafter referred to as "shri talaulicar"), the chairman of nitcl and a director of tfl along with his family members had received a sum of rs. 69 lakhs from one jip investment (hereinafter referred to as "jip"), a sub broker of jhp securities pvt. ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "jhp") a member of bse on march 31, 2001 and that shri talaulicar had delivered 1,00,000 shares of tfl on april 04, 2001 to jip. the said rs. 69 lakhs was a consideration for sale of 1 lakh shares of tfl @ rs. 69. subsequently, during 18th .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2004 (TRI)

Mayfair Paper and Board Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Aug-09-2004

1. the appeal is taken up with the consent of parties. the appellant in this appeal challenges the order passed by the adjudicating officer under sebi wherein the adjudicating officer has imposed a penalty of rs.75 lakhs on the appellant under section 15a of the sebi act for not furnishing necessary information in compliance with the summons issued against the appellant.2. a show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking as to why it did not comply with the summons dated 23rd of july 2002. an opportunity for personal hearing was also given to the appellant. the appellant did not respond and take advantage of the opportunity for personal hearing.notices were sent by registered post but the appellant did not appear.the appellant, by letter dated 12th of august 2002, sought for time till 30th of august 2002 providing for information and further extension was sought till 30th of september 2002 and a further extension was sought for 30 days from 30th of september 2002.3. what the respondent wanted was names and addresses of the promoters, directors during the last three years and names and addresses of the appellant's group companies, including demat details.4. this information was required, according to the respondent, to investigate transactions in the shares of roofit industries ltd. 5. there can be no dispute that the appellant was liable to answer the summons and produce whatever information that was available with the appellant. section 15a stipulates the penalty for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2004 (TRI)

Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Aug-09-2004

1. the appeal is taken up with the consent of parties. the appellant in this appeal challenges the order passed by the adjudicating officer under sebi wherein the adjudicating officer has imposed a penalty of rs.75 lakhs on the appellant under section 15a of the sebi act for not furnishing necessary information in compliance with the summons issued against the appellant.2. a show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking as to why it did not comply with the summons dated 23rd of july 2002. an opportunity for personal hearing was also given to the appellant. the appellant did not respond and take advantage of the opportunity for personal hearing.notices were sent by registered post but the appellant did not appear.the appellant, by letter dated 12th of august 2002, sought for time till 30th of august 2002 providing for information and further extension was sought till 30th of september 2002 and a further extension was sought for 30 days from 30th of september 2002.3. what the respondent wanted was names and addresses of the promoters, directors during the last three years and names and addresses of the appellant's group companies, including demat details.4. this information was required, according to the respondent, to investigate transactions in the shares of roofit industries ltd. 5. there can be no dispute that the appellant was liable to answer the summons and produce whatever information that was available with the appellant. section 15a stipulates the penalty for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2004 (TRI)

Veegee Holding and Finance Pvt. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of I ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Aug-09-2004

1. the appeal is taken up with the consent of parties. the appellant in this appeal challenges the order passed by the adjudicating officer under sebi wherein the adjudicating officer has imposed a penalty of rs.75 lakhs on the appellant under section 15a of the sebi act for not furnishing necessary information in compliance with the summons issued against the appellant.2. a show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking as to why it did not comply with the summons dated 23rd of july 2002. an opportunity for personal hearing was also given to the appellant. the appellant did not respond and take advantage of the opportunity for personal hearing.notices were sent by registered post but the appellant did not appear.the appellant, by letter dated 12th of august 2002, sought for time till 30th of august 2002 providing for information and further extension was sought till 30th of september 2002 and a further extension was sought for 30 days from 30th of september 2002.3. what the respondent wanted was names and addresses of the promoters, directors during the last three years and names and addresses of the appellant's group companies, including demat details.4. this information was required, according to the respondent, to investigate transactions in the shares of roofit industries ltd. 5. there can be no dispute that the appellant was liable to answer the summons and produce whatever information that was available with the appellant. section 15a stipulates the penalty for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2004 (TRI)

Auto Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Aug-09-2004

1. the appeal is taken up with the consent of parties. the appellant in this appeal challenges the order passed by the adjudicating officer under sebi wherein the adjudicating officer has imposed a penalty of rs.75 lakhs on the appellant under section 15a of the sebi act for not furnishing necessary information in compliance with the summons issued against the appellant.2 . a show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking as to why it did not comply with the summons dated 23rd of july 2002. an opportunity for personal hearing was also given to the appellant. the appellant did not respond and take advantage of the opportunity for personal hearing.notices were sent by registered post but the appellant did not appear.the appellant, by letter dated 12th of august 2002, sought for time till 30th of august 2002 providing for information and further extension was sought till 30th of september 2002 and a further extension was sought for 30 days from 30th of september 2002.3. what the respondent wanted was names and addresses of the promoters, directors during the last three years and names and addresses of the appellant's group companies, including demat details.4. this information was required, according to the respondent, to investigate transactions in the shares of roofit industries ltd. 5. there can be no dispute that the appellant was liable to answer the summons and produce whatever information that was available with the appellant. section 15a stipulates the penalty for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2004 (TRI)

Roofit Industries Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Aug-09-2004

1. the appeal is taken up with the consent of parties. the appellant in this appeal challenges the order passed by the adjudicating officer under sebi wherein the adjudicating officer has imposed a penalty of one crore rupees on the appellant under section 15a of the sebi act for not furnishing necessary information in compliance with the summons issued against the appellant.2 . a show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking as to why it did not comply with the summons dated 23rd of july 2002. an opportunity for personal hearing was also given to the appellant. the appellant did not respond and take advantage of the opportunity for personal hearing.notices were sent by registered post but the appellant did not appear.the appellant, by letter dated 12th of august 2002, sought for time till 30th of august 2002 providing for information and further extension was sought till 30th of september 2002 and a further extension was sought for 30 days from 30th of september 2002.3. what the respondent wanted was names and addresses of the promoters, directors during the last three years and names and addresses of the appellant's group companies, including demat details.4. this information was required, according to the respondent, to investigate transactions in the shares of roofit industries ltd., which is the appellant before us.5. there can be no dispute that the appellant was liable to answer the summons and produce whatever information that was available with the appellant. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 2004 (TRI)

Wada Arun Asbestos Cements Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of I ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Aug-09-2004

1. the appeal is taken up with the consent of parties. the appellant in this appeal challenges the order passed by the adjudicating officer under sebi wherein the adjudicating officer has imposed a penalty of rs.75 lakhs on the appellant under section 15a of the sebi act for not furnishing necessary information in compliance with the summons issued against the appellant.2 . a show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking as to why it did not comply with the summons dated 23rd of july 2002. an opportunity for personal hearing was also given to the appellant. the appellant did not respond and take advantage of the opportunity for personal hearing.notices were sent by registered post but the appellant did not appear.the appellant, by letter dated 12th of august 2002, sought for time till 30th of august 2002 providing for information and further extension was sought till 30th of september 2002 and a further extension was sought for 30 days from 30th of september 2002.3. what the respondent wanted was names and addresses of the promoters, directors during the last three years and names and addresses of the appellant's group companies, including demat details.4. this information was required, according to the respondent, to investigate transactions in the shares of roofit industries ltd. 5. there can be no dispute that the appellant was liable to answer the summons and produce whatever information that was available with the appellant. section 15a stipulates the penalty for .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //