TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to as "VCL", which is a listed company on the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "BSE". The Appellants appeared to have traded in the said shares (goods) of VCL between May 23, 2002 to June 25, 2002. The case of the Appellants is that they were impressed by the allegedly misleading advertisements published in various newspapers particularly as regards issue of buy-back as well as bonus shares. It is contended by the Appellants that both the schemes of buy-back and bonus shares did not materialize at all. In the process they suffered huge losses. Therefore, they are praying for a direction to SEBI to consider their prayer for grant of compensation for the loss suffered by them in the course of the transaction. They are s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Respondent till date as per confirmation of CPIO/SEBI letter dated 8/8/2010. (d) Cost of the appeal or any suitable order may kindly be passed in the interest of justice for which the Appellant shall be ever grateful. The Appellant crave leave to add to alter/amend the above grounds at the time of hearing of the present appeal. VII. Interim order prayed for- The Appellant most respectfully prayed that the Respondent No.2 & 3 may kindly ordered to deposit the amount of compensation as prayed by the Appellant as well as amount of penalty as prescribed u/s 15HA of Act, 59 of 2002 till pending of this appeal with the Hon'ble SAT as the Respondent No.2 has suspended the trading of the share of Respondent No.3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esulting in heavy losses to the Appellants. 4. Subsequently, the Appellants approached the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for redressal of their grievances and payment of alleged compensation suffered by the Appellants due to the above facts. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, while hearing the appeal of the Appellants on 17/1/2010 simply opined that the complaint of the Appellants was not within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, and if the Appellants wished to pursue their remedy, they might approach SEBI for the redressal of their grievance as per law. Accordingly, they preferred a petition before SEBI dated 21/8/2010 which was forwarded by SEBI to BSE vide their letter Ref.No.MR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he recalling of the order against them." 6. SEBI further admits that the investigation in pursuance of the remanded proceedings has been concluded and proceedings against 15 entities, including the directors, under section 11B of the SEBI Act are in progress. In those proceedings, SEBI had issued show cause notices to the entities but some of them were returned undelivered. SEBI is also in the process of serving notices on the entities by means of publication in newspapers. The Appellants have been informed, and are aware of the orders passed by SEBI and SAT mentioned above including the proceedings on remand. Thus, the submission of learned senior counsel Shri Shiraz Rustomjee, for the Appellants, is that SEBI is ill-equipped to adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven by the SEBI Act, 1992 to empower SEBI to streamline the functioning of the securities market as this task had remained scattered, uncertain and in many hands prior to 1992. Section 11(1) also deals with powers and functions of the Board in a manner similar to the preamble of the Act. Section 11(2), however, enumerates around 15 directives to SEBI to be undertaken by it in the discharge of its duties to attain the objectives for which it has been established. There is no directive or mandate in any of the 15 or 16 measures empowering SEBI to undertake the task of considering and granting compensation to an investor for the alleged losses he might have suffered due to certain misleading or fraudulent advertisements by a company. In view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 6th March, 2013 filed by Ms. Doel Saha, Assistant Legal Advisor that SEBI has already taken action against VCL and its directors under Section 11B and by an order dated 20th February, 2008, VCL was barred from accessing the securities market and from buying, selling or dealing in securities for a period of two years. However, this Tribunal by its Order dated 28th August, 2008 allowed the appeals preferred by VCL and remanded the matter to SEBI for fresh investigation. Further, a simple perusal of the objects mentioned in the preamble of the Act, read with the provisions of Section 11(1) of the SEBI Act, reveals beyond a doubt that a sort of development philosophy underlies the whole SEBI Act, 1992 and SEBI is required to operate keeping i....