MUMBAI, APRIL 6: Bombay Stock Exchange executive director RC Mathur failed to turn up for his hearing before SEBI chairman DR Mehta on Tuesday morning. Mehta had directed Mathur to be present at 11.30 am on Tuesday prior to his going abroad for a week.Mathur, however, failed to turn up at the hearing and SEBI officials said that there was no real reason given to the regulator for the same. Mathur had been issued a show cause notice to explain reasons for lapses in his part in handling the payments crisis at the exchange last year.Meanwhile, the appellate authority in the finance ministry has refused to grant any interim relief to J C Parekh, who was removed as president of the Bombay Stock Exchange by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).The interim order on an appeal filed by Parekh was passed by the authority comprising insurance secretary B K Chaturvedi and senior economic adviser Arvind Virmani on Tuesday. The final order, as has been decided earlier, would be passed by the authorityon April 9.Parekh has field the appeal against the SEBI order under section 20 of the SEBI Act. The appeal which sought stay against the SEBI order dated March 23, 1999 from the authority came up for hearing on Monday. In the interim order it was observed that SEBI had issued three directions against Parekh in the case relating to opening of the terminals beyond the stipulated hours on June 12, 17 and 19 last year.The first direction related to Parekh relinquishing his charge as president of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The members observed that, "it is not relevant any more as his term as president has expired on March 31,1999".The other two directions of the SEBI relate to his continuing as director in the BSE and participation in the other committees. In this regard, the members observed that, "appellant (J C Parekh) has not pointed out any specific circumstances requiring him to attend meeting of the Board of BSE in the next few days."They latter observed that "as the appeal is slated for finalorders on April 9. we do not consider it necessary to grant any interim relief in the intervening period to the appellant."
