Talking to ET Now , Former ED,, says the mere presence of FIIs or domestic institutions or HNI investors does not make a company good because many a times these investors are also stuck in the companies.Edited excerpts:This is a very difficult question because there will be hundreds of definitions depending upon the situation for the shell company. A shell company is defined as a company which may not be having the business it shows as having. If it is saying that it has got a 100 ton of manufacturing capacity and 100 ton is manufactured, it may not be that it is manufacturing 100 tons, it may be manufacturing one ton or five tons. So there is a gap between what is the business model projected and what is actual business model or there may not be any business at all. That is the definition of a shell company.No, no, that is what I am saying we do not know what is the basis or parameters which Sebi has applied. Unfortunately, that is not in the public domain but it may happen that out of 331 companies, maybe a few companies have appeared maybe because some data was not available or because of some other mistake. As you are saying that one of the company executive was saying that they are surprised, they can certainly go to Sebi. If there is a mistake, Sebi will admit it and correct the position but since we do not know what is the parameters, it will be difficult for us to say.The second thing is that the mere presence of FIIs or domestic institutions or HNI investors does not make a company good because many a times these investors are also stuck in the companies.No they do not have to verify credentials with the exchange because the order is given by Sebi and the exchange will not be able change anything. They will have to approach Sebi if they feel their name is wrongly included in the list.Otherwise exchanges cannot do anything. Exchanges have to follow this order of Sebi. If some company approaches exchange, exchange will say, go to Sebi.I would say that since we do not know what has been done by Sebi, it will be a safe assumption that the regulator would have taken adequate precaution and would have done adequate homework before taking this step. Or, it could be done on the basis of MCA report which Sebi would not have gone into details. We really do not know. Unless we know, we cannot pinpoint what is the basis on which Sebi has put out this list.It is not for tax evasion only, it is for bringing sensibility to the market and improving investor confidence plus stopping possible losses in future for the investors.