BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision: 19.02.2019
Misc. Application No. 253 of 2018
In
Appeal No. 120 of 2004
Anil D. Doshi
4, Bijal, 2nd Floor,
Hirachand Desai Road,
Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai- 400 086
…Applicant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India,
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051
…Respondent
Mr. J. J. Bhatt, Advocate with Ms. Rinku Valanju, Advocate i/b R. V.
Legal for the Applicant.
Mr. Aditya Mehta, Advocate with Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Advocate i/b
K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant on the
Miscellaneous Application No. 253 of 2018.

By this Miscellaneous
Application, the applicant has prayed for rectification of the order dated
December 06, 2004 passed in Appeal No. 120 of 2004 passed by
Securities Appellate Tribunal (“SAT”) in the matter of Anil D. Doshi Vs.
Securities and Exchange Board of India. By the rectification application,
the applicant has sought that an error has crept in the order which needs
2
rectification. It has been stated that the appellant was a director of CDP
Fincap Private Limited, Rijuta Fancap Private Limited and M/s.
Damayanti Fincap Private Limited. It was urged that the applicant was
only the director of CDP Fincap Private Limited and was not a director in
other two companies, and, therefore, this error which is apparent on the
face of the record needs to be rectified. In support of his submission, the
learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Form No. 32 which
indicates that he had resigned from the Board of Directors of M/s. CDP
Fincap Private Limited only. In this regard, we find that Securities and
Exchange Board of India had initiated proceedings under Section 11C(2)
of the Act which required the appellant to produce the books, registers
and other documents and records relating to the company.

In this
proceedings, the appellant failed to produce any documents to show that
he had resigned as director or was never appointed as a director of the
two other companies. This fact was also affirmed by SAT in its order of
2004. Consequently, at this belated stage, it is not open to the applicant
to file a rectification application which amounts to reviewing the order of
2004.

2.

The application is patently misconceived and is rejected.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C.K.G. Nair
Member
19.02.2019
Prepared & Compared By: PK