Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

C.A. No. 7219 of 2010

This appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous in terms of the signed order.

C.A. No. 7290 of 2010

This appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

C.A. No. 9834 of 2010

This appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

C.A. No. 9777 of 2010

This appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous in terms of the signed order.

Civil Appeal No. 7219 of 2010

As the period of debarment is over, no useful purpose will be served in passing any reasoned order in the present civil appeal. The same is, accordingly, disposed of as having become infructuous.

Civil Appeal No. 72 90 of 2010

By the impugned order dated 5th July, 2010, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the S.A.T.') had dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellant herein with slight modification in the order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India. The Appellant has challenged the aforesaid order of S.A.T. on various grounds which pertains to the interpretation of, inter alia, Sections 15(1), 11(2) and 15J of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short, 'the S.E.B.I.'). The main contention of Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant is that he has not facilitated Mr. Jayesh P. Khandwala to make ill-gotten gains by routing the funds and shares received from Roopal Panchal through its account. It appears that similar submissions have been made before us in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Jayesh P. Khandwala in Civil Appeal Nos. 882-884 of 2013.

Upon consideration of the entire matter, the case was remanded back to S.E.B.I. for reconsideration. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan submits that it would be appropriate for this Court to adopt the same course of action in the present matter. Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General appearing for the S.E.B.I. submits that his client would consent to the remand provided all issues are kept open including the direction for providing list of assets, as directed by us earlier, by order dated 3rd May, 2013.

In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of by remanding the matter to S.E.B.I.; keeping all the issues open and with a direction to the Appellant to comply with the earlier direction in relation to furnishing of assets.

Civil Appeal No. 9834 of 2010.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as learned Attorney General appearing for the S.E.B.I. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.

Civil Appeal No. 9777 of 2010

As the period of debarment is over, no useful purpose will be served in passing any reasoned order in the present civil appeal. The same is, accordingly, disposed of as having become infructuous.