Appeal dismissed due to failure to challenge initial decision, highlighting NCLT's authority for rectification directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's repetitive complaints to SEBI without challenging the initial decision. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's option to appeal earlier if dissatisfied with SEBI's order. It recognized NCLT's authority to issue rectification directions, supporting the appeal's dismissal. The appellant was granted liberty to seek legal recourse in other forums as per the law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disposal of complaint by SEBI
2. Allegations of fraud against Link Intime
3. Multiple complaints filed by the appellant
4. Competency of SEBI to investigate and issue directions
5. NCLT's authority to issue directions for rectification

Issue 1: Disposal of complaint by SEBI
The appellant filed a complaint with SEBI, challenging the disposal of the complaint by SEBI on 31st May, 2017. SEBI reiterated its decision, advising the appellant to approach NCLT for resolution. The appellant subsequently filed two more complaints with SEBI, leading to the current appeal.

Issue 2: Allegations of fraud against Link Intime
The appellant alleged that Link Intime, the Registrar and Transfer Agent of Eicher, was involved in fraudulent activities. The appellant discovered that shares were transferred to another individual without proper verification, leading to a complaint filed with the police. Similar instances of fraud were reported by other investors, indicating a pattern of misconduct by Link Intime.

Issue 3: Multiple complaints filed by the appellant
The appellant filed multiple complaints with SEBI regarding the same grievance, despite previous rejections. SEBI dismissed subsequent complaints, prompting the appellant to challenge the decisions through the present appeal.

Issue 4: Competency of SEBI to investigate and issue directions
The appellant argued that SEBI had the authority to investigate the misconduct committed by Link Intime and issue necessary directions. SEBI's assistance was deemed necessary by NCLT in a related matter, indicating SEBI's role in addressing such issues.

Issue 5: NCLT's authority to issue directions for rectification
The case of Ms. Adesh Kaur highlighted NCLT's competence to issue directions for rectification of the register of the company under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956. This authority was upheld by the Supreme Court in a related case.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant repeatedly raised the same issue in multiple complaints to SEBI instead of challenging the initial decision. The Tribunal noted that if the appellant was dissatisfied with SEBI's order, an appeal to the Tribunal could have been filed earlier. The Tribunal also recognized NCLT's authority to issue directions for rectification, further supporting the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant was granted the liberty to seek recourse in other legal forums as provided by law.

---