BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

Appeal No. 20 of 2011

Date of Decision : 2.9.2011

T & R Welding Products (India) Ltd.
29, II Main Road,
Ambattur Industrial Estate,
Chennai – 600 058.

          …… Appellant 

Versus 

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India
   Plot No. C-4A, G Block,
   Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),
   Mumbai – 400 051.   
    
2. Madras Stock Exchange Limited
   “Exchange Building” Post Box No.30,
   Second Line Beach, Chennai 600 001,
   Tamilnadu, India. …… Respondents Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, Advocate wi th Mr. Paras Parekh, Advocate for the
   Appellant.
   Dr. Poornima Advani, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Khaire, Advocate for Respondent no.1.
   None for Respondent no.2.
   CORAM : Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
   P.K. Malhotra, Member
   S. S. N. Moorthy, Member
   Per : Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)
   The appellant is a public limited company and its shares are listed only on the
   Madras Stock Exchange which is now defunct. It is common ground between the parties
   that the shares of the appellant company have not been traded for the last 7 years. The
   appellant wants to get delisted and being a sm all company, made an application to the
   respondent Board for granting exemption from certain provisions of voluntary delisting
   procedure in terms of the Securities and Ex change Board of India (Delisting of Equity
   Shares) Regulations, 2009. This application has been rejected by the respondent Board
   and the order has been communicated to the appellant by letter dated November 30, 2010
   which has been impugned in the present appeal filed under section 15T of the Securities
   and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. We have perused the impugned communication

2  
 

and find that it contains no reasons. Since every order passed by the respondent Board is
appealable to this Tribunal under section 15T of the Act, it is in the fitness of things that
the order should contain some reasons in suppo rt of the conclusion arrived at. In the
absence of reasons, this Tribunal is handicapped in examining the merits of the decision
taken by the Board. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned communication
and remit the case to the respondent Board for passing a fresh order in accordance with
law giving reasons in support of its conclusion. In case the appellant applies to the Board
for a personal hearing, the same shall be granted to it before passing the fresh order.
The appeal is disposed of as above with no order as to costs.

                        Sd/- 

Justice N.K.Sodhi
Presiding Officer

                          Sd/-  

P.K. Malhotra
Member

Sd/-
S.S.N. Moorthy
Member
2.9.2011
Prepared and compared by
RHN