Title: Chain Roop Bhansali v SEBI
Decided on: 05th October, 2023
+ CO.APP. 25/2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Introduction
The Appellant Chain Roop Bhansali had filed this present appeal, impugning an order dated 12 September 2023, in which the learned Company Court had modified the constitution of the Special Committee by deletion of one member of the committee, also they had given some further instructions relating to the same. Notably, the appellant didn’t have issues with the directions that were given by the Company Court rather he filed the present petition being aggrieved by the tenure of the Order which according to him was prejudicial to him.
Facts of the Case
Chain Roop Bhansali is a part of M/s CRB Capital Markets Limited’s Ex-Management, the said company was under liquidation, and also a settlor of the trust that held the mutual fund. At the suggestion of the appellant, by an order dated 29.05.2014, the learned Company Court had appointed Mr. A.A. Sisodia as a member of the Special Committee. However, the impugned order of 12 September 2023 directed that Mr. A.A. Sisodia shall not function as a member of the Special Committee, through that same impugned order there were some allegations on the appellant suggesting wrongdoings on the part of the appellant. Due to this, he had filed the present petition.
Contentions
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Company Court had directed that the Special Committee shall not allow any interference from the appellant or any of his family members or officials. He further contended that these observations rest on the premise that the appellant had been interfering with the functioning of the Special Committee however no material on record substantiates the said assumption and there is no finding to the aforesaid effect, yet the offending observations had been made by the learned Company Court without hearing the appellant.
Court Judgement and Analysis
The court didn’t find any merit in the present appeal. Although they agreed that it has been mentioned in the impugned order that there are allegations against the appellant, however, the learned Company Court has neither mentioned the said allegations nor returned any finding in respect of those allegations.
The Hon’ble HC held that the observation in paragraph 13 of the impugned order which talks about the allegations, would merely be considered a statement of fact, they also clarified that none of the observations made in the impugned order shall be read to the prejudice of the appellant.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
