sebi:WTM/KMA/OIAE/342/12/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Panjwani Packaging Limited and its directors Ms. Sujata Verma, Mr. Amarlal Chugh and Mr. Kamal Panjwani restrained from accessing the securities market and prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, till all pending investor grievances against the company are resolved; show cause notice issued to Mr. Shyam Sunder Pandit disposed of without any directions.
Provisions invoked
- s. 11B
- s. 19
Parties
- Panjwani Packaging Limited
- Ms. Sujata Verma
- Mr. Amarlal Chugh
- Mr. Kamal Panjwani
- Mr. Shyam Sunder Pandit
Holding
SEBI restrained Panjwani Packaging Limited and its directors Ms. Sujata Verma, Mr. Amarlal Chugh and Mr. Kamal Panjwani from accessing the securities market and from dealing in securities directly or indirectly until all pending investor grievances against the company are resolved. The show cause notice issued to Mr. Shyam Sunder Pandit was disposed of without any directions.
Full text
Page 2 of 5 India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the SEBI Act). The said letter was returned undelivered. Thereafter, SEBI, vide reminder dated February 13, 2009 advised the Company to file the Action Taken Report. The same was returned undelivered. Since the letters sent to the Company returned undelivered, a public notice was given on March 23, 2009 in the website of SEBI (www.sebi.gov.in) advising the Company to resolve the pending investor grievances and to submit the Action Taken Report. Despite such letters and public notice, SEBI had not received any response from the Company.
Page 3 of 5 undelivered from the last known address a copy of the same along with the notice of hearing was pasted at the last known address, as substituted address. A paper publication was also made by SEBI on June 13, 2010, in respect of the said show cause notice and hearing in various newspapers having nationwide and statewide circulation including ‘Hindustan Times’ (Mumbai, New Delhi & Kolkata Edition) ‘Sandesh’ (Rajkot Edition) and ‘Gujarat Samachar’ (Vadodara Edition). Despite affording adequate opportunities, the Company and its directors failed to appear on August 5, 2010. I have considered the facts of the matter and the material available on record. As it was found later that the address of the Company as per the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs was at “61, Keshar Bag Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh-452001”, SEBI issued a letter dated November 8, 2010 to the Company enclosing therewith a copy of the show cause notice dated November 6, 2009 and the notice for personal hearing. The said letter required the Company to respond to the show cause notice latest by November 28, 2010. The Company was also informed that further action would be taken as mentioned in the said show cause notice. However, the said letter also returned undelivered. Since the show cause notice has been published in various newspapers as stated above and also in the website of SEBI and since the Company failed to respond despite affording sufficient opportunities, I proceed to consider the
Page 4 of 5 The protection of the investors in the securities market is one of the paramount duties of SEBI and the present case involves a listed company that not only failed to redress the investors’ grievances but also failed to respond to the letters/show cause notice issued by SEBI. None of the directors (except Mr. Shyam Sunder Pandit) of the Company responded to the letters/show cause notice issued by SEBI. Therefore, it would be against the interests of the investors to permit such Company and its directors to access or deal in the securities market. I also note that SEBI had initiated prosecution proceedings (before the Hon’ble 37th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Esplanade, Mumbai) inter alia against the Company and its then directors for non compliance of Sections 73(2A) and 113(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. Taking into account, the failure of the Company in redressing the investor grievances, I find it appropriate to issue necessary directions against the Company and its aforesaid directors who are in charge and are responsible for the affairs of the company for their failure to redress the grievances of the investors.
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:WTM/KMA/OIAE/342/12/2010. 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.