BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

Misc. Application No. 81 of 2012
And
Appeal No.143 of 2012

    Date of Decision: 12.09.2012     

Palco Recycle Industries Limited
Opp. Khandwadi, Ramol Road,
Post: Jantanagar,
Ahmedabad- 382 449

                                     ……Appellant 

Versus

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

                                …… Respondent 

Mr. Ashish Asthavedi, Advocate for the Appellant.
Dr. Mrs. Poornima Advani, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Khaire & Ms. Rachita Romani,
Advocates 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 compa ny incorporated under the provisions of
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Ahmedabad. It decided to come out
with its public issue and accordingly file d draft Red Herring Prospectus with the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board) on November 1, 2010 for its
comments/observations as required under regula tion 6 of the Securities and Exchange
Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosu re Requirements) Regulations, 2009
(the Regulation). The grievance of the appell ant is that inspite of complying with the
queries raised by the Board, the Board ha s not issued its approval/comments on
proposed public issue. It is, therefore, prayed that the Bo ard may be directed to issue
necessary approval for the proposed public issue by the company. The appellant had
earlier also filed an appeal (Appeal No. 199 of 2011) with the same grievance which

2
was withdrawn by it on January 6, 2012 on the understanding given by the learned
counsel for the respondent that the Board w ill take a final decision on the application
within a period of six weeks. Since no deci sion was taken by the Board, the appellant
has again approached this Tribunal for the same relief.

2. During the course of heari ng, learned counsel for the Board stated that a final
   decision could not be taken as there are certai n issues with regard to the delivery of
   postal ballots to the shareholders of th e appellant company on which the Board has
   sought decision of the Registrar of Companie s (the ROC) and response to the same is
   awaited. In the absence of response from the ROC the Board is not in a position to offer
   its final comments on the draft Red Herring Prospectus filed by the company. We are
   further given to understand that the ROC had already addressed a communication in this
   regard to the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the company has received the letter
   to which it will be responding in due course. It was stated by the learned counsel for the
   respondent that the Board will take a final decision on the application within two weeks
   on receipt of the decision of the ROC. On that understanding learned counsel for the
   appellant, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed as withdraw n. The miscellaneous application also
accordingly stands disposed of.

                      Sd/-                       
                        P.K.Malhotra 
                             Member & 
                        Presiding Officer  (Offg.) 

    Sd/- 
        S.S.N. Moorthy 
              Member 

12.09.2012
Prepared & Compared By: Pk

3