BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

                        Appeal No. 45 of 2012 

                             Date of decision: 1.3.2012 

Rikhav Securities Ltd.
B, Matruchhaya,
4th Floor, S. N. Road,
Mulund (West),
Mumbai – 400 080.

                           ……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
Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate with Mr. Prabhakar Kengar, Advocate for the
Appellant.
Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kh aire, Ms. Rachita Romani,
Advocates for the Respondent.
CORAM : P. K. Malhotra, Member
S. S. N. Moorthy, Member

Per : P. K. Malhotra, Member (Oral)
The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated January 11, 2011 passed by the
whole time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the
Board) confirming the direction issued against the appellant vide ex-parte ad interim
order dated July 11, 2011. When the Board passed ex-parte ad interim order dated
July 11, 2011 prohibiting the a ppellant to act as a syndi cate member/sub-syndicate
member for the forthcoming issues till further directions, the appellant had
approached this Tribunal. The Appeal no. 175 of 2011 filed by the appellant was
disposed of vide our order dated November 16, 2011 as under:-

“This appeal is directed against an order dated July 11, 2011 passed
by the whole time member pending investigations, inter alia,
restraining the appellant from acting as a syndicate member/sub-
syndicate member for all the forthc oming public issues until further
orders. The primary grievance of the appellant at this stage is that it
has not been heard before the impugne d directions were issued. It is
true that the appellant was not heard when the impugned order was
passed. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
Board states that the order shall be treated as an ad-interim ex-parte

2
order qua the appellant and that th e appellant would be afforded an
opportunity of hearing within the next two weeks. Mr. Modi learned
counsel appearing for the appellan t states that the memorandum of
appeal be treated as a reply on behalf of the appellant. In view of the
statements made by the learned counse l for the parties, we dispose of
the appeal with a dire ction to the respondent Board to hear the
appellant within the next two weeks. It will, however, be open to the
whole time member to seek such further information/documents from
the appellant as may be required. Th e whole time member shall then
pass such interim or final order as he deems fit qua the appellant
within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs.”
The Board afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and passed the
impugned order dealing with the issues raised by it.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
   memorandum of appeal. All the grounds taken before us in the appeal were also
   taken before the whole time member which have been dealt with in the order under
   appeal. The investigation in the matter is still on. The initial pattern of behaviour, as
   per investigation carried out by the Board, indicates towa rds role of the appellant in
   the unusual bidding and withdrawal in the IPO of Vaswani Industries Limited. The
   Board has passed the interim order to safe guard the securities market and in the
   interest of the investors. We do not think it proper to go into the merits of the case at
   a stage when the matter is still under inve stigation. Learned counsel for the Board
   states that the Board will complete the i nvestigation as expeditiously as possible and
   take appropriate necessary action within a pe riod of four months from today qua the
   appellant. In view of this, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
   The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- P. K. Malhotra Member Sd/- S. S. N. Moorthy Member 1.3.2012
   Prepared & Compared by
   ptm