Securities Appellate Tribunal

Kumar Kanti Bhattacharya vs Securities and Exchange Board of India on 22 December 2017

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

DATE : 22.12.2017

Appeal No. 343 of 2017

Kumar Kanti Bhattacharya

Son of Late Ramesh Chandra Bhattacharjee, Being the Director of Cell Realcon Corporation Ltd.

4RB, 3/6 Purbachal Phase-II, Sector – III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700097.

….. Appellant

Versus

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India

2. The Whole Time Member Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051.

… Respondents

Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate with Mr. Saikat Ray Chowdhury, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b Desai & Diwanji for the Respondents.

CORAM : Justice J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member

Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral)

Page 1 of 2

1. This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the Whole Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’ for short) on 4.10.2017. By the said order Cell Realcon Corporation Ltd. (company for short) and its directors including the appellant are directed to refund the money collected from its investors with 15% interest within the time stipulated therein. Admittedly, appellant had contended before the WTM that substantial amount has been refunded to the investors, however, appellant contends that reasonable opportunity was not given to produce documents in support of above contention.

2. Since the appellant is willing to implement the order passed by WTM, we direct the appellant to make a representation to SEBI within 2 weeks setting out details of the amount allegedly refunded and the mode and the manner in which balance amount would be refunded to the investors.

2

3. If a representation is made within a period of 2 weeks from today SEBI shall consider the same and pass appropriate order thereon. We make it clear that we have not interfered with the order passed by SEBI. It is only for the limited purpose of considering the question as to whether the appellant has refunded substantial amount and has provision for refunding the balance amount, permission is granted to make a representation. The appellant shall also furnish list of assets alongwith the representation.

4. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Sd/- Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/- Jog Singh Member

22.12.2017 Prepared and compared by RHN

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead