TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parties agree that since these appeals arise out of common set of facts, they can be disposed of by a common order and facts can be taken from Appeal no. 145 of 2012. When these appeals were fixed for hearing learned counsel for the appellant has taken a preliminary objection with regard to appeal being heard by this bench in the absence of a regular Presiding Officer. It was stated by him that a Writ Petition No. 5847 of 2012, Sandeep Jain v. Union of India has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear appeal in the absence of a regular Presiding Officer. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeals were kept pending awaiting outcome of the writ petition. The Hon'ble H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es were fully paid up at Rs. 10/-each and rest of 1,20,00,000 shares were partly paid up to the extent of 10%. The total paid-up capital of the company amounted to Rs. 4,20,00,000/-. The details of the preferential allotment to the nine entities, as stated in the impugned order, is as under: No . Noticees No. of shares allotted Total no. of shares allotted % of the paid up share capital 1. Burlington Financial Services (P) Ltd. 7,45,000 66,56,000 shares. 15.85% 2. Dwarkadhish Import & Export (P) Ltd 7,43,000 3. R Shankar 7,45,000 4. GS Sridhar 4,46,000 5. PV Muralikrishna 7,40,000 6. A Rajendra Prasad 7,00,000 7. Hemdil Financial Services Ltd 7,40,000 8. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard found the appellants guilty of violating the provisions of the takeover code and imposed the penalty as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, counsel for the appellant and Dr. (Mrs.) Poornima Advani, counsel for the respondent Board, who have also taken us through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has also filed his written submissions. In brief, challenge to the impugned order is on the grounds that the penalty imposed on the appellants is based on conjectures and surmises and there is no proof of any wrong doing on their part. He has also pleaded that the findings given by the adjudicating officer are based on various documents, bank statements and oral testimony of the directors of the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....portunity of cross-examination of persons whose statements have been relied upon. Copies of relevant documents were also made available. While imposing the penalty, the adjudicating officer has also considered the provisions of section 15 J of the Act and also imposed penalty under section 15 A(b) and section 15 H of the Act as they existed at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the Board, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for by this Tribunal and findings arrived at by the adjudicating officer needs to be upheld. 7. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the findings arrived at by the adjudicating officer with regard to violation of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s by the appellant before us it is writ large on the face of it. We are also not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the order has been passed merely on conjectures or surmises. We are not inclined to agree with him that the adjudicating officer has relied on documents or material collected behind the back of the appellant. As stated in the impugned order itself, which is not disputed, the appellants were afforded opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded and consequent to the cross-examination, the appellants filed their reply. It is not clear what further principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. We are also unable to agree with the argument of learned coun....