BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

      Appeal No. 164 of 2011 

      Date of decision: 15.02.2012  

M/s. Western India Shipyard Ltd.
P.O. Box No. 21,
Mormugao Harbour,
Mormugao,
Goa.

… Appellant

Versus

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

… Respondent

None for the Appellant.

Mr. Prateek Seksaria, Advocate with Mr. Mobin Shaikh, Advocate for the Respondent.

Coram : P. K. Malhotra, Member
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member
Per : P. K. Malhotra, Member (Oral)

This appeal is directed against the order dated July 26, 2011 passed by the
adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India holding the appellant
guilty of violating Section 15C of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
and imposing a penalty of Rs.2 lacs. The Board found that the appellant had delayed /
failed to redress the investors’ grievances in spite of opportunity given to it by issuing
notice. It is the case of the Board that neither the grievances were redressed nor the
appellant has submitted the action taken report in the prescribed format, as required by
the Board.

2

2. We heard this matter on October 14, 2011 when Mr. Ismail Nasikwala,
   Advocate for the appellant, made his detailed submissions. After hearing the counsel
   for the parties, we passed the following order:
   “The charge against the appellant which has been established in the
   adjudication proceedings is that it has failed to redress the
   grievances of its investors. It is on this count that a monetary
   penalty of Rs.2 lacs has been imposed. There were 391 complaints
   which were pending with the appellant-company which had not
   been redressed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
   informs us that 316 complaints have since been redressed and most
   of the debenture-holders have been paid the amount due to them in
   terms of the scheme of arrangement framed by the Hon’ble High
   Court. The appellant is directed to appear before the respondent
   board within the next four weeks with documentary proof to show
   that 316 grievances of the investors have been redressed and a
   report in this regard be filed with the respondent Board in the
   prescribed format. As regards the remaining complaints, the
   appellant shall furnish a list of the complaints copies of which it
   desires to obtain from the respondent board. Let this list be
   furnished within a week. On receipt of the list of complaints, the
   respondent Board shall furnish copies of the complaints to the
   appellant and the learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to
   redress the grievances of those investors as well within three weeks
   thereafter.

Adjourned to November 21, 2011”

When the matter was taken on November 21, 2011, counsel for the appellant requested
further time of three weeks. The request was granted and the matter was fixed for
hearing on January 10, 2012 on which date adjournment was sought on the ground that
counsel for the appellant is unwell. When the matter was taken up on February 1, 2012
another request for adjournment was made which was granted and the case was fixed
for today. However, no one is present on behalf of the appellant. We are surprised that
in spite of the learned counsel for the appellant undertaking before us on October 14,
2011 to redress the grievances of the investors within three weeks, the appellant has not
complied with the requirement till date. Learned counsel for the Board has placed on
record a copy of the email dated January 30, 2012 whereby the appellant was advised to
send the action taken report along with all the required documents as proof of redressal
of investors’ grievances. We are told by the learned counsel for the Board that no reply
has been received from the appellant. The appellant has not only failed to keep its

3

commitment made before this Tribunal on October 14, 2011, but it has sought
adjournments on three different dates thereafter and has still failed to redress the
investors’ grievances referred to in the impugned order. No fault, therefore, can be
found with the impugned order. We see no ground to intervene in the matter.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

            Sd/-     
              P. K. Malhotra  
                  Member  

         Sd/- 
          S.S.N. Moorthy 
              Member 

15/02/2012
Prepared & compared by-ddg