from accessing the capital market.
A person aggrieved is one whose financial interest is directly affected by a decree and judgement and is entitled to bring an action challenging the legality of the judgement.
"In the facts and circumstance of the present case, we are of the view that no case is made out by the appellant (Radheyshyam Agarwal) to show that he is a "person aggrieved," the tribunal said.
"...We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection of the Board (Sebi) and hold that the present appeal is not maintainable since the appellant is not a "person aggrieved" by the impugned order," it added.
In March, the Securities and Exchange Board of India had withdrawn a ban against 100 entities belonging or linked to the Tayal group, observing that all these entities have been debarred for the last two years from the securities markets and that there is no need to continue the directions any further.
The regulator in March 2010 had barred these entities from the share market for allegedly violating rules including takeover norms and fraudulent practices.
The revocation had came despite an investigation finding violations by 92 out of the 100 entities. But Sebi had recommended adjudication proceedings against them. Even as the proceedings would continue, the regulator said all the 100 entities are free to participate in the market.
Sebi in its interim order dated March 8, 2010, had restrained 100 entities from accessing the securities market and further prohibiting them from trading in stock market till further directions.
As per an earlier Sebi order, the promoters had conveyed at they were reducing their shareholding in Bank of Rajasthan (now merged with ICICI Bank) from 44.18 per cent as of three months ended June 2007 to 28.61 per cent as of the quarter ended December 2009 to comply with a Reserve Bank of India directive to reduce stake.
However, it was noted by Sebi that their shareholding had in fact increased and no disclosures relating to increase in the stake were made to the stock exchange or to the public by any of the concerned entities.
Agarwal, in its appeal to the tribunal, said that the prohibitory order issued on March 8, 2010 against these
entities should have been continued as the procedings are still continuing and charges against entities are of violating of the takeover code.