IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

 

 

Appeal No.116/2002

 

 

Date of Hearing	19.01.2006
Date of Decision	19.01.2006

 

In the matter of:

 

Golden Glade Plantations (P) Ltd.,�	Appellant � Represented by Ms. Venita Baam, Advocate.
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India	Respondent � Represented by. Shri Subhash Jha and Jimesh Shah, Advocates along with Mr. Praveen Trivedi, Dy.Legal Adviser, SEBI .

 

Coram:

 

��������� Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer

��������� R. N. Bhardwaj, Member

���������

 

Per:��� Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)

 

���������

��������� M/s. Golden Glade Plantation Pvt. Ltd., (fort short �the Company�) is the appellant before us.� It has filed this appeal under section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as �the Act�)� challenging the order dated July 2, 2001 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short �the Board�) debarring amongst others, the appellant, its promoters, directors, managers and persons in charge of� its business from operating in the capital market for a period of 5 years from the date of the order.

 

��������� The company was incorporated on 2^nd September, 1992 and is said to have commenced its business in the year 1993.� It is operating a collective investment scheme by growing Teak trees for persons who invest with the company.� It is not necessary to go into details of this scheme because the penalty has been imposed by the Board on the ground that the company failed to get itself registered with the Board under the provisions of the Act.� It is not in dispute that the collective investment scheme run by the company is a security within the meaning of the Act and that it was necessary for the company to get itself registered with the Board in terms of clause (1-B) of Section 12 of the Act.� The Board issued notices to the company and its directors and also gave a public notice to all such companies running collective investment schemes to get themselves registered under the Act.� The company did not get itself registered and, therefore, the penalty was� imposed by the Board.

 

��������� The only ground urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the company could not �get itself registered because of financial difficulties.� We do not think this is a ground for not getting itself registered.� Law does not permit any person to carry on or� operate a collective investment scheme without obtaining a certificate of registration from the Board.� Since the company has not got itself registered, the Board was justified in imposing the penalty.� No fault can, thus, be found with the impugned order.�

���������

��������� No other point has been raised.

 

��������� In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed� with no order as to costs.

 

Justice N. K. Sodhi Presiding Officer       R. N. Bhardwaj, Member.

 

Place: Mumbai

Date: January 19, 2006.