BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

   Appeal No. 183 of 2012  

    Date of Decision: 29.11.2012     

Mr. A.K. Muthuswamy
Old No. 30, New No. 67, Bishop Garden,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai- 600 028
State of Tamilnadu

                                    ……Appellant    

Versus

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India
   SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,
   Bandra Kurla Complex,
   Mumbai- 400 051.
2. Osian’s Art Fund
   Rep. By its Chairman,
   24B, Nariman Bhavan,
   Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. …… Respondents

Mr. K. Mahadevan, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Chande and Ms. Aparna
Kalluri, Advocates for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Zal Andhyarujana, Advocate with Mr. Vyapak Desai. Mr. Sahil Shah and
Ms. Payal Chatterjee, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.

CORAM : P.K. Malhotra, Member & Presiding Officer (Offg.)
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member

Per : P.K. Malhotra (Oral)

The appellant is aggrieved by the letter dated January 31, 2011 issued by the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board), stating that the complaint dated
January 18, 2011 submitted by the appellant does not come within the purview of the
respondent Board. The complaint pertains to investments made by the appellant in a
scheme floated by respondent no. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that the dues have
not been refunded by respondent no. 2 within the time frame as stipulated in the
scheme. He preferred a complaint before the Board and Board has not taken appropriate
action on that complaint.

2. We have heard leaned counsel for the parties for some time. It was submitted by
   learned senior counsel for the respondent Board, that the Board is willing to re-examine
   the matter. However, it is facing some constraint because of the order dated 2
   April 16, 2012 of the Madras High Court in writ petition no. 21751 of 2011 wherein the
   Hon’ble Madras High Court has observed that the Board does not have power to review
   its own orders.
3. We have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. It seems that
   further direction given by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in paragraph 12 in the said
   order has not been properly appreciated by the Board. The Court has categorically
   stated that the order shall not bar the petitioner to challenge the order passed by
   respondent no. 1, if so permissible in law, by filing an appeal or taking other remedies
   to address the grievance.
4. The appellant is before us with his grievance against the said letter dated
   January 31, 2011. Counsel for the parties agree, that let the matter be reexamined by the
   Board in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. In view of the submissions
   made by learned counsel for the parties, we set aside the communication dated January
   31, 2011 and direct the Board to reexamine the matter after hearing both the parties and
   in the light of the extant instructions on the subject. The Board is directed to pass an
   order and take a final view in the matter within a period of two months.
5. Needless to say, these directions are given without prejudice to the merits of the
   case which would be looked into by the Board. Both the parties should co-operate and
   provide necessary material to the Board, if required.
   The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Sd/-
   P.K.Malhotra
   Member &
   Presiding Officer (Offg.)
   Sd/-
   S.S.N. Moorthy
   Member
   29.11.2012
   Prepared & Compared By: Pk