BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

 Misc. Application No. 36 of 2012 
 And 
 Appeal No. 67 of 2012 
                           Date of decision: 26.4.2012 

Ashutosh Gupta
411, Professor Colony,
Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana.

… Appellant

Versus

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India
   SEBI, 5th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building,
   16, Sansad Marg,
   New Delhi – 110001.
2. Shri Gagan Banga,
   Chief Executive Officer,
   Indiabulls Securities Ltd.,
   Malhotra Building,
   Connaught Place,
   New Delhi.
3. Shri Sanjeev Chobe
   (the then Regional Manager and Branch Manager)
   At Indiabull Securities Ltd.
   Yamunanagar, 102-A-Santpura Road,
   Model Town, Above HDFC Bank Ltd.,
   Mela Singh Chowk,
   Yamunanagar. … Respondents
   Mr. Pawan Aryan, Advocate for the Appellant.
   Dr. Poornima Advani, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Khaire, Advocate for Respondent no. 1.
   Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate for Respondents no. 2 and 3.
   CORAM : P. K. Malhotra, Member & Officiating Presiding Officer
   S. S. N. Moorthy, Member

Per : P. K. Malhotra (Oral)

The appellant is aggrieved by the comm unication dated November 23, 2011 of the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) by which he has been informed
that his grievance does not appe ar to be a case for violatio n of Section 15C under Chapter
VIA of the Securities and Exchange Boar d of India Act, 1992 (the Act). This
communication was sent to the appellant in consequent to the direction issued by the

2
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1068 of 2010 decided
on January 21, 2011. By the said order, r ead with order in LPA No. 1042 of 2010, the
Hon’ble High Court disposed of the appeal with following directions:-

“ An apparent innocuous direction given by the learned Single Judge
contained in penultimate paragraph of the order dated 11.11.2009 passed
in Civil Writ Petition No. 13857 of 2008 has been chal lenged in this
appeal. The said challenge is primarily on the ground that the requirement
of passing orders by the appellant Board on the representation of the
petitioner Annexure P-4, has the effect of creating a legal precedent which
may unnecessarily bind the appellant Board which receives a large number
of applications/representations of the investors. Infact, learned counsel for
the appellant board has submitted that on receipt of
communication/representation (Annexure P-4), the matter was referred to
the National Stock Exchange and thereafter as per the agreement between
the Stock Exchange and the broker, the matter was gone into in an
arbitration proceeding wherein the award has also been passed.
The above action already taken along with the fact whether any
default under Chapter VI-A had been committed on the allegations made
and if so the action proposed on that basis be communicated to the
respondents-writ petitioners. The pres ent direction will not be construed
as a precedent in future to bind the appellant Board to any particular
course of action in future.”
The grievance of the appellant is that the impunged communication has not been passed in
accordance with the direction given by the Hon’ble High Court.

2. In case the appellant is aggrieved by non implementation of the direction given by
   the High Court, we are of the view that the remedy does not lie before this Tribunal under
   Section 15T of the Act. The appellant has to avail remedy before the appropriate forum.
   We, therefore, decline to entertain the appeal.
   The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/-
   P. K. Malhotra
   Member &
   Officiating Presiding Officer Sd/-
   S. S. N. Moorthy
   Member
   26.4.2012
   Prepared & Compared
   ptm