BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

   Appeal No. 179 of 2012 

   Date of Decision: 12.09.2012     

Almondz Global Securities Limited
3 Scindia House, 2nd Floor, Janpath,
New Delhi- 110 001.

                           ……Appellant 

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai- 400 051

                       …… Respondent 

Mr. Ravichandra S. Hegde, Advocate with Ms. Arti Raghavan, Advocate for the
Appellant.
Mr. Mobin Shaikh, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : P.K. Malhotra, Member & Presiding Officer (Offg.)
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member
Per : P.K. Malhotra (Oral)
The appellant before us is a public limited company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and registered as a merchant banker with the Secu rities and
Exchange Board of India. The scope of appellant’s activities includes issue
management, underwriting of issues, open offer and buyback of shares etc. It is also
stated that in addition to merchant banking, the appellant offers various other services to
a diverse set of clients including private placement of bonds, infrastructure advisory and
broking activities.

2

2. Bharatiya Global Infomedia Limited (the Company) came out with an IPO in
   July 2011 and thereafter its shares were listed on the National Stock Exchange and
   Bombay Stock Exchange. The appellant was the book running lead manager for the
   issue.
3. The Board carried out investigations into the initial public offer of the equity
   shares of the company and observed certain irregularities. Pending investigations it
   passed an ad interim ex-parte order on December 28, 2011 against various entities
   including the appellant. The appellant was restrained from taking up any new
   assignment or involvement in any new issue of capital including IPO, follow-on issue
   etc. from securities market in any manner wh atsoever from the date of the order and
   until further directions. The allegation against the appellant is that it has not exercised
   due diligence in handling the IP O of the company assigned to it as a merchant banker.
   The said ex-parte ad interim order is also a show cause notice to the appellant asking it
   to file its objection, if any, to the said order.
4. It is the case of the appellant that it had filed its reply to the show cause notice
   in March 21, 2012. Thereafter a personal hearin g was also granted to the appellant on
   April 26, 2012. The grievance of the appellant is that under ex-parte ad interim order, it
   has been deprived of its business and inspite of four months period having passed since
   grant of personal hearing, no order has passed by the Board. It is, therefore, prayed that
   the direction contained in the impugned order be set aside.
5. Learned counsel of the respondent Board submits that the Board is still carrying
   out its investigations into the matter. A large number of parties are involved and the
   completion of investigations may take some more time. However, so for as the
   appellant is concerned, the Board will be in a position to pass appropriate order within a
   period of two weeks from today. 3
   In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Board, we dispose
   of the appeal with a direction to the Board that appropriate order, qua the appellant, may
   be passed within a period of two weeks from today. In case no such order is passed, the
   ex-parte ad interim order qua the appellant, shall stand vacated. No costs. Sd/- P.K.Malhotra Member & Presiding Officer (Offg.) Sd/- S.S.N. Moorthy Member 12.09.2012
   Prepared & Compared By: Pk