Anand Sarnaik & Anr. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 240 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A party seeking equitable relief against a demand notice or attachment notice for a penalty must have first deposited the amount that has been upheld by the appellate authority, and where it has not done so, no equitable relief can be granted in its favour.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision : 01.06.2022 Misc. Application No. 396 of 2022 And Appeal No. 240 of 2022 1. Anand Sarnaik 2. Mrs. Devyani Sarnaik 402, Jairaj CHS Ltd., Opp. Income Tax, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 051. ..... Appellants Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent Mr. Neville Lashkari, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Chhangani, Mr. Ravi Shekar Pandey, Ms. Samreen Fatima, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent. CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This Court while deciding the appeal on July 23, 2019 had reduced the fine from Rs. 40 lacs to Rs. 30 lacs in spite of which the amount has not been paid. Now, a notice of demand and attachment 2 notice dated April 20, 2021 and May 31, 2021 respectively has been challenged in the present appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any reason to interfere in the notice of demand and / or the attachment notice since admittedly, even the reduced amount of Rs. 30 lacs which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by its order dated November 25, 2019 has not as yet been deposited. Thus, there is no equitable relief in favour of the appellant that can be granted at this stage. 4. The appeal is misconceived and is dismissed. 5. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Certified copy of this order is also available from the Registry on payment of usual charges. Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member RAJALA Digitally signed 01.06.2022 by RAJALAKSHMI KSHMI HDate:
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free