Anil Vishnu Bharti vs Sebi

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 16.11.2022 Misc. Application No. 1252 of 2022 And Appeal No. 861 of 2022 Anil Vishnu Bharti 282, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kali Mata Seva Sangh, Janta Colony Road, Near Highway, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai- 400 060 ...Appellant 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. Vikas Bengani, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Ravishekhar Pandey and Ms. Shefali Shankar, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners, Advocates for the Respondent. CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant has challenged the order dated August 31, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Officer ("AO" for convenience) of 2 the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for convenience) imposing a penalty of Rs. 7.5 lakhs upon the appellant. 2. There is a delay of 1464 days in the filing of the appeal.

Accordingly an application for condonation of delay has been filed. The ground urged is, that the show cause notice was never served upon the appellant and that the entire proceedings proceeded ex-parte without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It was further contended that the appellant came to know about the proceedings only in August 2022 when the Recovery Certificate was issued. 3. Having perused the record, we find that the show cause notice was sent at the given address which is not disputed. It is stated that the address given by the appellant is still the same which is reflected in his bank statements as well as in the present memorandum of appeal. The learned counsel submits that the address is of the employer where he was working in 2016 and thereafter joined another firm but rejoined the same employer in 2019. 4. Considering the aforesaid and even assuming for the time being that the notice was not received by the appellant when it was issued in 2018 as it was served at the address of the employer as given by the appellant we still find that the appellant was duly served through email.

The contention that the appellant was not using this email ID for a long period cannot be believed in the absence of any evidence. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that since the service of the show cause notice was made through email there was sufficient compliance of Rule 7 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995. Since sufficient service has been done the AO rightly proceeded in the matter. We do not find any error in the service of the show cause notice. 6. In view of the inordinate delay in the filing of the appeal and in the absence of any sufficient cause been shown to condone the inordinate delay the application is rejected, as a result of which the appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. 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 RAJALAKS Digitally signed Technical Member by HMI RAJALAKSHMI 16.11.2022 HARISH HARISH NAIR Date: 2022.11.23 PK NAIR 17:21:09 +05'30'