sebi:SRP/RK/AO-30/2009
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Disposed of; adjudication proceedings cannot proceed without leave of the Court
Provisions invoked
- s. 21
- s. 23
- s. 23E
- s. 446
- s. 391
Holding
The adjudication proceedings initiated against the Noticee on September 3, 2007 cannot be proceeded with without leave of the Court in accordance with Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, since the winding up order was passed on July 28, 2004.
Full text
Page 2 of 5 4. The aforesaid failure on the part of the Noticee in complying with the listing agreement attracts penalty under the provisions of Section 23 E read with Section 21 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “SCRA”).
Page 3 of 5 b) Whether the adjudication proceedings initiated by SEBI can be continued in view of the Noticee being under Liquidation?
Page 4 of 5 12. It is observed that Section 446 is wide in its terms and is not restricted to any category of suits or any class of plaintiffs. It is wide enough to cover all suits and other legal proceedings whoever may be the plaintiff. {Sri Murugan Oil Industries (P.) Ltd.Re, (1970) 40 Com. Cases 77, 82 (Mad) following Ghouse Khan v Bala Subha Rowthar, AIR 1927Mad 925}.
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:SRP/RK/AO-30/2009. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.