CHAIN ROOP BHANSALI vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.
$~83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 05th October, 2023
+ CO.APP. 25/2023
CHAIN ROOP BHANSALI ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vikramaditya Singh, Mr. Vineet Gupta, Mr.Vinamrath Kopariha, Mr. Vinay Tripathi and Mr. Mayank Bhargava, Advocates.
versus
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD
OF INDIA & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate with Mr.Abhishek Baid, Mr.Pranjeet Das, Mr.Anup Jain, Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain and Ms. Asees Jasmine Kaur, Advocates for Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Sodamini Sharma, Adv. for SEBI
Mr. Aman Leekna, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Avneesh Garg, Mr. M. T. Reddy and Ms. Srika Selvam, Advocates for Respondent No. 3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
CM APPL. 51443/2023 (for exemption)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CO.APP. 25/2023 & CM APPL. 51442/2023
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal, impugning an order dated 12.09.2023 (hereafter impugned order), whereby the learned Company Court had changed the constitution of the Special Committee by deleting one member, and had given further directions.
2. Concededly, none of the directions issued by the learned Company Court adversely affect the appellant.
3. The appellant has filed the present appeal essentially being aggrieved by the tenor of the order, which the appellant claims is prejudicial to him.
4. It is submitted that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings and, yet, certain observations have been made suggesting wrong doings on the part of the appellant.
5. The appellant is a part of the ex-management of the company under liquidation (M/s CRB Capital Markets Limited) and was also a settlor of the trust which held the mutual fund.
6. At the suggestion of the appellant, by an order dated 29.05.2014, the learned Company Court had appointed Mr. A.A. Sisodia as a member of the Special Committee. In terms of the impugned order, the learned Company Court has directed that Mr. A.A. Sisodia shall not function as a member of the Special Committee.
7. In particular, the appellant takes exception to the observations in the impugned order to the effect that there are allegations against him. It is further contended that the learned Company Court had directed that the Special Committee shall not allow any interference from the appellant or any of his family members or officials. The appellant contends that these observations rest on the premise that the appellant had been interfering with the functioning of the Special Committee. He submits that there is no material on record which substantiate the said assumption and there is no finding to the aforesaid effect, yet the offending observations have been made by the learned Company Court without hearing the appellant.
8. Mr Amit Sibal submits that the appellant has had no opportunity to meet any of the allegations, which were alluded to by the learned Company Court in the impugned order.
9. We find no merit in the present appeal. Although it has been mentioned in the impugned order that there are allegations against the appellant, however, the learned Company Court has neither mentioned the said allegations nor returned any finding in respect of those allegations.
10. Undisputedly, the record of the learned Company Court shows that there are allegations against the appellant and, therefore, the observation in paragraph 13 of the impugned order to the aforesaid effect, is a mere statement of fact.
11. The directions that the Special Committee shall not allow any interference from the appellant are no cause of grievance to the appellant as, according to the appellant, he has not been interfering with the functioning of the Special Committee.
12. Mr. Sibbal, submits that although there are no findings, the impugned order may be read to the appellants prejudice.
13. In this regard, we clarify that none of the observations made in the impugned order shall be read to the prejudice of the appellant.
14. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
15. All pending application also stand disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 5, 2023
SS
CO.APP. 25/2023 Page 1 of 1