BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision
: 7.8.2019
Misc. Application No.290 of 2018
And
Appeal No.348 of 2018
Chokhani International Limited
Z-20, 1st Floor, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase II, New Delhi – 110020, Delhi.

….. Appellant
Versus
BSE Limited
Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers,
Dalal Street, Mumbai – 400001.

…… Respondent
Mr. Kunal Katariya, Advocate with Ms. Sourabhi Waknis,
Advocate i/b. Aagam Doshi for the Appellant.
Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocate
i/b. ELP for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
Misc. Application No.290 of 2018
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in
filing the appeal is condoned.
The Misc. Application is allowed.

2
Appeal No.348 of 2018
1.

The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated
26th June, 2018 delisting the Company has filed the present
appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
We find that the trading in the equity shares of the Company
was suspended with effect from 6th September, 1999 on
account of non compliance of the erstwhile Listing
Agreement.

The exchange issued a circular dated
12th February, 2016 allowing suspended companies to apply
for revocation of suspension of trading in securities. Inspite
of the circular no steps were taken by the Company for
revocation of its trading in securities.
2.

Consequently, a show cause dated 26th April, 2018
was issued to show cause as to why the Company should not
be compulsorily delisted from the platform of the exchange.
The appellant did not file any objection to the show cause
notice and consequently the impugned order was passed
under Regulation 22 of Chapter V of the Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Delisting of Equity Shares)
Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “Delisting
Regulations”) read with Section 21A of the Securities
3
Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as
“SCRA”), the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as “SCRR”).
3.

In the impugned order we find that the process that was
required to be adopted by the respondent was as follows:
 Formation of the Delisting Panel, i.e. the present
Committee in terms of Regulation 22(1) of
Delisting Regulations.
 Provide an opportunity of representation and
personal hearing to the Company.
 Issuance of public notice.
 Consideration of representation made by the
Company/any
aggrieved
person
by
the
Committee.
 Consideration of criteria specified in Schedule III
of the Delisting Regulations.
4.

One of the processes is opportunity of personal hearing
to the Company.
5.

The proviso to Section 21(A) of the SCRA Act
provides as under:
“Provided
that the securities of a company shall not be
delisted unless the company concerned has been given
a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”
4
6.

From the aforesaid, it is clear that the securities of the
Company shall not be delisted unless the Company was given
a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the instant case,
we find that after the issuance of the show cause notice, no
opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the
appellant. Consequently, the impugned order is violative of
the principles of natural justice as embodied under Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
7.

For the reasons stated aforesaid, the impugned order
cannot be sustained and is quashed. The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is directed to proceed from the stage of
issuance of the show cause notice.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C. K. G. Nair
Member
Sd/Justice M.T. Joshi
Judicial Member
7.8.2019
Prepared and compared by
RHN