2016 (9) TMI 767

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... P. N. Modi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate i/b Corporate Law Chambers India For The Respondent : Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point Per: Justice J.P. Devadhar 1. Appellants in these four appeals are aggrieved by the common order passed by the Whole Time Member ("WTM" for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rectly in any manner, whatsoever, for a period of four years. It is further stated in the impugned order that the period of prohibition already undergone by the appellants pursuant to the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 28.12.2011 shall be taken into account for the purpose of computing the period of prohibition imposed under the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the appellants have alread....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 ("PFUTP" Regulations" for short). 6. It is relevant to note that based on the aforesaid violations, the AO of SEBI by his order dated 06.08.2014 had inter alia imposed penalty of Rs. 2 crore on the directors of RDB. Challenging the said order passed b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....O is erroneous with reference to the two additional charges, could not and ought not to have upheld the two additional charges against the appellants. 9. However, going into the question as to whether the WTM of SEBI was justified in upholding the two additional charges would now be futile, because the appellants have already undergone the debarment imposed under the impugned order and as such th....