BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
Appeal No. 154 of 2007
Date of decision: 3.7.2008
Uniworth Textiles Limited …… Appellant
Versus
1.Bombay Stock Exchange Limited
2.Securities and Exchange Board of India …... Respondents
Mr. Joby Mathew Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. P.N. Modi Advocate with Mr. Sagar Divekar Advocate for Respondent no.1.
Mr. Dr. Poornima Advani Advocate with Mr. Haihangrang E.H. Newme Advocate for Respondent no.2.
Coram: Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
Arun Bhargava, Member
Utpal Bhattacharya, Member
Per: Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)
It is not necessary to state the facts in detail as we are of the opinion that on account of the subsequent events, the present appeal has become infructuous. Uniworth Textiles Limited is the appellant before us and its securities are listed, among others, on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). As the company failed to pay the annual listing fee and did not comply with the provisions of clause 38 of the listing agreement, trading in the scrip was suspe nded with effect from February 3, 2002. It appears that the representatives of the appe llant were then in correspondence with the officers of BSE and were requesting them to revoke the order of suspension. By letter dated April 4, 2007 BSE informed the appellant that its request would be considered only
after it satisfied the conditions enumerated in the letter and advised the company to file an application for revocation of suspensi on after addressing/ complying with the requirements stated in the communication. It is against this communication that the present appeal has been filed.
It appears that BSE discovered that there was a discrepancy in the issued capital of the company and the listed capital and the difference between the two was to the tune of 47.5 lacs shares. Fresh capital had been issued prior to the suspension in trading which has not been listed so far. The learned c ounsel for the respondent points out that the appellant has been informed to make an app lication for getting the unlisted capital listed on the Exchange and that when such an appli cation is filed the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. It is thus clear that trading in the scrip of the company cannot be allowed till the entire issued capital is listed for which the appellant will file an application which w ill be considered as pointed out by the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant states that such an application has already been filed. We have no doubt that BSE shall consider the same expeditiously. In this view of the matter the present appeal has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly making it clear that all issues raised in the appeal are left open.
Sd/- Justice N. K. Sodhi Presiding Officer Sd/- Arun Bhargava Member Sd/- Utpal Bhattacharya Member 3.7.2008
pw