BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

Appeal No. 19 of 2013

Date of Decision : 22.03.2013

Teakwood Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
(formerly known as Nirman Management
Services Pvt. Ltd.)
601, Plot No. 371, Sukha Castle,
Opp. HDFC Bank,
Bhandarkar Road, Matunga,
Mumbai – 400 019.

…App ellant

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. P.N. Modi, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.P. Lashkari and Ms. Akshaya Bhansali,
Advocates for the Appellant.

Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Ms. Harshada Nagare, Advocate for the
Respondent.

CORAM : P.K. Malhotra, Member & Presiding Officer ( Offg.)
Jog Singh, Member

Per : P.K. Malhotra (Oral)

This appeal is directed against the order dated August 21, 2009 passed by the

whole time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the

Board) confirming the ex parte ad interim order dated April 23, 2009 passed pending

investigations in the scrip of Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limited. The ex parte order

was passed restraining the appellant and others from accessing the securities market

pending investigation. We are informed that the investigation in the matter was

concluded on July 31, 2010. It is the case of the appellant that in spite of the

investigation having been completed and the repeated representations made by the

appellant, the Board has not taken any further action. The appellant also states that the

directions issued by the Board against the appellant are being continued even after the

2

passage of more than three years. The Board has neither initiated any action nor it has

taken any steps to discontinue such harsh directions against the appellant. It is,

therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the

respondent Board has placed on record a copy of the show cause notice dated

March 21, 2013 passed by the Board in pursuance of the investigation carried out by

it. The appellant is required to furnish its reply in response to the said show cause

notice which will be considered by the Board and it was stated, on instructions, that

the Board will pass a final order in the matter within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of reply to the show cause notice from the appellant. Since the

Board has already issued a show cause notice after completion of the investigations, it

was submitted that in view of the changed scenario, no interference is called for by

the Tribunal at this stage.

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant stated that the show cause notice has

not yet been served. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that it will be served on

the appellant during the course of the day.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time. We take note of

the that pBoa own admission, the investigations in the matter were

concluded on July 31, 2010. However, it issued show cause notice to the appellant

only on March 21, 2013 i.e. immediately after the appellant approached this Tribunal

for relief. We express our unhappiness and concern over this approach of the Board

which makes the appeal infructuous. If the Board proposes to pass an order which can

have ffeon appellappependinbefthe al, expected

the Board should bring this fact to the notice of the Tribunal before passing such

order. Having said so, we are of the view that in the present case, since show cause

notice has already been issued and a statement has been made on behalf of the Board

that final order will be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt

of reply from the appellant, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case or to

3

deal with the impugned order. However, we direct the Board to pass a final order in

the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of reply to the

show cause notice from the appellant. In case the Board fails to do so, the impugned

order passed against the appellant shall automatically stand vacated.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant also made a request that the

appellant may be permitted to sell three scrips, namely, Bihar Tubes Ltd. (now known

as APL Apollo Tubes Ltd.), Sel Manufacturing Company Ltd. and Usher Agro Ltd.

held in its account as the value of the scrips is depleting due to fluctuating market.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant further stated that money so realised will be

kept in an interest bearing account and it will not be utilized without prior permission

of the Board. Since the Board has already agreed to pass a final order within a period

of three months, we are not inclined to deal with this prayer at this stage more so

when there is no such prayer in the appeal. However, the appellant is at liberty to

approach the Board and Board may deal with such request as it may deem appropriate

in the facts and circumstances of the case. The decision on such request should be

taken by the Board as per law within ten days from the date of receipt of such request.

The appeal stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs.

       Sd/-    

P.K. Malhotra
Member &
Presiding Officer ( Off g.)

                     Sd/-  
                           Jog Singh   
                       Member  

22.03.2013
Prepared and compared by:
msb