{"id":137600,"date":"2002-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002"},"modified":"2016-02-14T07:11:40","modified_gmt":"2016-02-14T01:41:40","slug":"sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries … on 23 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Securities Appellate Tribunal<\/div>\n
Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries … on 23 October, 2002<\/div>\n
Bench: G Bajpai<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 1.0 Background   <\/p>\n
 1.1 Investigation in the case of M\/s Anik Ship Breaking Industries Limited
\n(hereinafter referred to as ASBIL) was initiated by SEBI based on a complaint
\nreceived from M\/s Skindia Finance Ltd., wherein it was alleged that unusual
\ntrading took place in the scrip of the company from 25.06.97 to 23.12.97.
\nNSE was also requested to conduct an investigation. While carrying out
\npreliminary investigation it was found that certain entities related to ASBIL
\nhad made applications in the public issue of ASBIL which was made in 1996.
\nIt was suspected that the funding for these applications which were made
\nthrough stock invests came indirectly from ASBIL itself. Accordingly,
\ninvestigation was initiated into possible violations of DIP Guidelines and
\nSection 77 of the Companies Act in course of a public issue. The
\ninvestigation has been concluded. <\/p>\n
 2.0 Public issue of ASBIL  <\/p>\n
 2.1 ASBIL came out with a public issue of 1,09,31,100 equity shares of Rs. 10\/-each
\nfor cash at par through its prospectus dated 31.01.1996. The issue
\nopened on 27.02.96 and closed on 09.03.96. After allotment the shares were
\nlisted on NSE, BSE, Rajkot and Ahmedabad Stock Exchanges.\n<\/p>\n
 2.2 The terms of payment of the public issue was Rs 2.50 on application and Rs
\n7.50 on allotment.\n<\/p>\n
 3.0 NSE Report   <\/p>\n
 3.1 On investigation, NSE found that there was a sudden spurt in trading
\nvolumes during the period 25.06.97 to 23.12.97. It was found that the sellers
\nwere persons or entities who were the original allottees in the public issue
\nwho were likely to be connected with the promoters of ASBIL. It was also
\nfound that the company had failed to mobilise allotment money from its
\nshareholders.\n<\/p>\n
 4.0 Manipulations in the public issue  <\/p>\n
 4.1 On examination of the data, provided by the records of the registrar to the
\nissue and the banks which issued stock invests, the following facts came to
\nlight.\n<\/p>\n
 4.2 Stock invest issued by Bank of Rajasthan – It was found that 8 stock invests
\nwere issued by the Versova branch of the Bank of Rajasthan, Mumbai for the
\npublic issue of ASBIL with which 8 applications were made, as given in the
\nfollowing table.\n<\/p>\n
Stock Invest   Name and address   Number of shares  No. of shares   Amount (Rs.)
\n     No.       of the applicant       applied          allotted<\/p>\n
   876178     Deepal Mehta Atit       400000           389300          1000000
\n              Shopping Ent.Pvt.\n<\/p>\n
              Ltd. Shop No.10,
\n              Off Apna Bazar,
\n              D N Nagar,
\n              Andheri (W)
\n              Mumbai – 400 053<\/p>\n
   876179     Ramesh Shah 53,         400000           389300          1000000
\n              Juhu Alaknanda,
\n              Gulmohar, X -Road
\n              No.10, Juhu-Vile-Parle
\n              (W), Mumbai – 400 049<\/p>\n
   876180     Kaushal Mehta Atit      400000           389300          1000000
\n              Shopping Ent.Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
              Shop No.10,
\n              Off Apna Bazar, D N
\n              Nagar, Andheri (W)
\n              Mumbai -400 053<\/p>\n
   876181     Kashmira Mehta Atit     400000           389300          1000000
\n              Shopping Ent.Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
              Shop No.10,
\n              Off Apna Bazar, D N
\n              Nagar, Andheri (W)
\n              Mumbai -400 053<\/p>\n
   876182     Rajesh Mehta Atit       400000           389300          1000000
\n              Shopping Ent.Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
              Shop No.10,
\n              Off Apna Bazar, D N
\n              Nagar, Andheri (W)
\n              Mumbai – 400 053<\/p>\n
   876185     Pina Shah 53, Juhu      200000           194700           500000
\n              Alaknanda, Gulmohar,
\n              X – Road No.10,
\n              Juhu-Vile-Parle (W),
\n              Mumbai – 400 049<\/p>\n
   876187     Dhayalal Shah 281,      600000           584000          1500000
\n              New Reay Road,
\n              Cabin No.11,
\n              Darukhana, Reay Road,
\n              Mumbai – 400 010<\/p>\n
   876188     Ramesh Shah 281,        200000           194700           500000
\n              New Reay Road,
\n              Cabin No.11,
\n              Darukhana, Reay Road,
\n              Mumbai – 400 010<\/p>\n
   TOTAL                             3000000          2919900          7500000<\/p>\n
 These 8 applicants applied for 30 lakhs shares and were allotted 29,19,900
\nshares on 14.05.96. It was found from the bank records that at the time of
\nissue of the above stock invests, a single lien was marked on a fixed deposit
\nstanding in the name of one Rajesh Mehta (fixed deposit a\/c no 559). On
\nallotment, the amount of Rs. 75 lakhs was debited neither from this account
\nnor from the account of the applicants, but from the account of one M\/s RR
\nInvestments towards payment of application money for shares allotted to the
\nabove mentioned 8 applicants. It is found from the account details of M\/s RR<\/p>\n
Investments that it is a partnership concern and that its partners are Ramesh
\nShah, Pina Shah, Rajesh Mehta and Kashmira Mehta. These four people are
\namong the 8 applicants who made applications through stock invests as
\nmentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
 4.3 Stock invests issued by United Western Bank – Four stock invests for an
\namount of Rs 25 lakhs were issued by the Lower Parel branch of the United
\nWestern Bank, Mumbai in the name of 4 persons who have the same
\naddress as given in the following table.\n<\/p>\n
Stock Invest   Name and address of   Number of shares   No. of shares   Stock Invest
\n     No.          the applicant          applied          allotted       Amount (Rs.)<\/p>\n
   016494      Vaishali V Mehta           250000           243300          625000
\n               B – 42, Mehta House,
\n               Off New Link Road,
\n               Andheri (W),
\n               Mumbai – 400 058<\/p>\n
   016495      Suresh B Mehta             250000           243300          625000
\n               B – 42, Mehta House,
\n               Off New Link Road,
\n               Andheri (W),
\n               Mumbai – 400 058<\/p>\n
   016496      Jasumati Mehta             250000           243300          625000
\n               B – 42, Mehta House,
\n               Veera Ind. Estate,
\n               Off Link Road,
\n               Andheri (W),
\n               Mumbai – 400 058<\/p>\n
   016493      Vipul Mehta                250000           243300          625000
\n               B – 42, Mehta House,
\n               Veera Ind. Estate,
\n               Off Link Road,
\n               Andheri (W),
\n               Mumbai – 400 058<\/p>\n
    TOTAL                                1000000           973200         2500000<\/p>\n
 The four persons made an application for 10 lac shares and were allotted
\n9,73,200 shares. The stock investor issued against a deposit of Rs 25 lakhs
\nmade in stock invest deposit account no 95\/30. This was a joint account held
\nby five persons including the four applicants and was introduced by M\/s RR
\nInvestments. On allotment of shares to these applicants, the application<\/p>\n
money was debited not from this deposit account but from the account of M\/s
\nRR Investment held in United Western Bank, Lower Parel branch.\n<\/p>\n
 4.4 Therefore, a total of 38,93,100 shares amounting to approximately 35% of
\nthe public issue has been funded by M\/s RR Investments through the above
\nstock invests.\n<\/p>\n
 4.5 On 14.5.96, the account of M\/s RR Investments maintained with Bank of
\nRajasthan received a credit of Rs 100 lacs from the account of one M\/s
\nDeepal Corporation. One of the partners of M\/s Deepal Corporation, Mr
\nRajesh Mehta was also a partner of M\/s RR Investments. Of this amount Rs
\n75 lakhs was debited against the issue of 8 stock invests mentioned in para
\n4.2 above and the balance of Rs 25 lakhs was transferred to the account of
\nM\/s RR Investments maintained with United Western Bank, Lower Parel
\nBranch on 14.05.96. This amount of Rs 25 lakhs was later debited from that
\naccount towards the four applications mentioned in para 4.3 above.\n<\/p>\n
 4.6 On the same day – 14.5.96, M\/s Deepal Corporation received an amount of
\nRs.100 lacs from ASBIL through instrument no 002154 drawn on Times
\nBank.\n<\/p>\n
 4.7 On enquiry M\/s Deepal Corporation had stated by its letter dated 18.06.2002
\nthat the amount of Rs 1 crore received by it from ASBIL on 14.05.96 was in
\npart payment of a loan given by it to ASBIL. It also stated that the loan given
\nby it was secured by creating a lien on subscription money to be received by
\nTimes Bank in connection with the public issue. However, they say that copy
\nof the lien letter is not available with them.\n<\/p>\n
 4.8 In the statement given to SEBI and recorded under section 11(3) of the SEBI
\nAct on 10.06.2002, Mr. Ramesh Shah and Mr. Rajesh Mehta on behalf of
\nthemselves and as representing others have stated that the shares of ASBIL<\/p>\n
allotted to them were sold to M\/s Meeti Investments and Consultancy
\nServices Pvt. Ltd. This company was shown as a group company in the
\nprospectus of ASBIL.\n<\/p>\n
 4.9 In view of the above facts, summons were issued to the Managing Director
\nof ASBIL and to Shri IB Lakhani, Shri PP Bhuta, Shri RK Irani and Shri AB
\nLakhani, who were directors of ASBIL as named in the prospectus, at the
\naddresses given in the prospectus, to appear in connection with the
\ninvestigation into the public issue of ASBIL. However, none of them have
\nchosen to appear in response to the summons.\n<\/p>\n
 4.10 In response to SEBI’ s queries, the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange has vide
\nits letter dated 1.7.2002 informed that ASBIL is “not complying with the
\nListing Requirement of our Exchange since October, 1999. They have not
\nsubmitted the Annual Returns, Financial Results and any other documents
\nduring the year : 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and all the letters forwarded by
\nour Exchange to the last known address of the company M\/s. Anik Ship
\nBreaking Industries Ltd. are also being returned undelivered and therefore it
\nis a fit case to declare this company as a vanishing company”. The case of
\nASBIL has accordingly been referred to the Vanishing Companies Cell of
\nSEBI for further action.\n<\/p>\n
 5.0 Show Cause Notice  <\/p>\n
 5.1 Pursuant to the above findings of investigation, it was decided to initiate
\naction under section 11B of the SEBI Act against the directors of ASBIL.
\nTherefore, show cause notices dated 08.08.2002 were issued to the above
\ndirectors communicating to them the above facts and calling upon them to
\nshow cause as to why directions under section 11B of the SEBI Act should<\/p>\n
not be passed against them including directions debarring them from
\naccessing the capital market for a period of five years.\n<\/p>\n
 5.2 They were given a period of 15 days within which to submit their reply.
\nHowever, none of them have replied to the show cause notices so far nor
\nhave communicated with SEBI.\n<\/p>\n
 5.3 They were also given an opportunity of personal hearing before the
\nChairman on 14.09.2002, which was communicated to them by SEBI’ s letter
\ndated 28.08.2002. The date for hearing was later postponed to 16.09.2002
\nand communicated to them by SEBI’ s letter dated 30.08.2002. However,
\nnone of them have chosen to appear before the Chairman despite the
\nopportunity granted to them.\n<\/p>\n
 5.4 In above circumstances, it has been decided to proceed exparte against the
\nabove-named directors.\n<\/p>\n
 6.0 Consideration of the issues   <\/p>\n
 6.1 The facts stated in paragraph 4 of this order have been established by
\ncontemporaneous records and books of account of the Registrar to the Issue,
\nand the records of the Bank of Rajasthan and the United Western Bank,
\nwhich are maintained by them in the ordinary course of their business.\n<\/p>\n
 6.2 The flow of funds has taken place as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Account of _M\/s ASBIL maintained with Times Bank ?\n<\/p>\n
Transferred an amount of Rs. 100 Lacs to the account of M\/s Deepal Corporation, <\/p>\n
on 14.05.96 maintained with Bank Of Rajasthan (BOR) vide cheque no. 002154.\n<\/p>\n
Account of Deepal Corporation with BOR ?\n<\/p>\n
Received an amount of Rs. 100 lacs on 14.05.96 from Times Bank ?\n<\/p>\n
Transferred an amount of Rs. 100 lacs on 14.05.96 to the account of M\/s R R Investments maintained with BOR.\n<\/p>\n
Account of M\/s R R Investments with BOR ?\n<\/p>\n
 Received a credit of Rs. 100 lacs from Deepal Corporation on 14.05.96. ?\n<\/p>\n
 Transferred an amount of Rs. 25 lacs to the account of M\/s R R Investments maintained with UWB on
\n16.05.96 ?\n<\/p>\n
 Balance of Rs. 75 lacs was debited against the payment for the issue of 8 stock invests in the Public
\nIssue of M\/s ASBIL on 14.05.96<\/p>\n
Account of M\/s R R Investments with UWB ?\n<\/p>\n
 Recd the credit of Rs. 25 lacs on 16.05.96 ?\n<\/p>\n
This amount was debited against the payment for the issue of 4 stock invests by UWB Funding of 12 stockinvests to the tune of 100 lacs by Ramesh Shah and Group through M\/s R R Investments.\n<\/p>\n
 6.3 In this case, the entire issue has been staged managed by the company
\nand its promoters. If 35% of the issue was not subscribed by the above
\nmentioned applicants, the entire issue would have failed. 35% of the
\nallotments have been made through finances indirectly made available by
\nASBIL itself. If the issue had failed due to non receipt of minimum
\nsubscription, the company would have been required to repay the
\napplication moneys paid by the other innocent investors as per section
\n69(4) of the Companies Act within the time specified therein. In default,
\nthe directors would have become jointly and severally liable to repay the
\nmoney to the investors. This provision was intended to safeguard the
\namounts paid by the appellants until such time as the minimum
\nsubscription as disclosed in the prospectus is received by the company.\n<\/p>\n
 6.4 The SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 specify
\nthat a minimum of 90% of the issue should be disclosed as the minimum
\nsubscription. Though the genuine subscriptions received (after excluding
\nthe above mentioned applicants) was way below this mark, the company
\nhas proceeded to make the allotments. This is a gross violation of section
\n69 of the Companies Act and the DIP Guidelines. The Supreme Court
\nhas held that retention of subscription money in violation of section 69(4)
\nmay amount to offences on part of the directors and promoters under
\nsections 405 and 409 (Criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code
\nwhere mens rea is established 1 .\n<\/p>\n
 6.5 Section 77(2) of the Companies Act prohibits any public company from
\ndirectly or indirectly financing the purchase or subscription by any person
\nof its own shares. This provision was made to prevent trafficking by a
\ncompany in its own shares, thereby influencing the price of its own shares.
\n1 Radhey Shyam Khemka v. State of Bihar, [1993] 73 Com Cases 356.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the facts found as detailed above, it is clear that the company
\nand its directors have grossly violated this section.\n<\/p>\n
 7.0 Conclusion  <\/p>\n
 7.1 In view of the grave nature of the violations, such events have the
\npotential to destroy the investors confidence in the integrity of the primary
\nmarkets. I am of the considered view that if the investor’ s interest in the
\nprimary market is to be revived, it is absolutely essential that in the future
\nsuch occurrences do not take place.\n<\/p>\n
 7.2 It is felt in the above circumstances that unless the directors of ASBIL are
\ndebarred from accessing the capital market for a period of five years, they
\nmay again raise money from the investors through a similar bogus issue
\nand the investors will be taken for a ride. However notwithstanding such
\ndirect debarring, the directors of ASBIL may resort to floating new
\ncompanies, acquiring existing companies or using companies in which
\nthey hold substantial interest to raise money from the public. Hence, it is
\nnecessary to take preventive measures debarring companies in which
\ndirectors of ASBIL have controlling or substantial interest from directly or
\nindirectly raising moneys from the capital market.\n<\/p>\n
 7.3 Therefore I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section
\n11(1) and 11B read with Sub Section (3) of Section 4 of the SEBI Act,
\nhereby direct the directors of ASBIL, Shri A. B. Lakhani, Shri P.P. Bhuta,
\nShri C.P. Bhuta, Shri I.B. Lakhani and Shri R.K. Irani to disassociate
\nthemselves in every respect from the capital market related activities and
\nnot to access the capital market for a period of five years. I also direct
\nmore specifically that the public companies in which the above directors
\nhold controlling or substantial interest shall not be allowed to raise funds
\nfrom the capital market for a period of five years.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Securities Appellate Tribunal Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries … on 23 October, 2002 Bench: G Bajpai ORDER 1.0 Background 1.1 Investigation in the case of M\/s Anik Ship Breaking Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as ASBIL) was initiated by SEBI based on a complaint received from M\/s Skindia Finance Ltd., wherein it was alleged […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nSebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries ... on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries ... on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-14T01:41:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries … on 23 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-14T01:41:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2376,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries ... on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-14T01:41:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries … on 23 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries ... on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries ... on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-14T01:41:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries … on 23 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-14T01:41:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002"},"wordCount":2376,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002","name":"Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries ... on 23 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-14T01:41:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-anik-ship-breaking-industries-on-23-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sebi vs Anik Ship Breaking Industries … on 23 October, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137600","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137600"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137600\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}