Ankit Yarns Limited vs Sebi

Date of Decision: 27.03.2019

Misc. Application No. 389 of 2018 And Appeal No. 438 of 2018

Ankit Yarns Limited 9 Industry House, Plot No. 4, Narwah Estate, Off Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 072 ...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. Saurabh Bachhawat, Advocate i/b Mr. Bankim Mehta, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody and Mr. Sushant Yadav, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)

1.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is a

delay of 449 days in filing the appeal. The ground urged is that in

para 23 of the impugned order it was categorically stated that the

appellant was not guilty of violation of 15A(a) of the Securities and

Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI 2

Act") and that separate proceedings against the appellant under

Section 15HB of SEBI Act would be initiated. On this basis

separate proceedings were initiated by SEBI which culminated into

an order dated March 26, 2018 in which a separate penalty was

imposed which the appellant has paid. It was further contended that

the appellant has now realised that the impugned order also carried a

penalty of ` 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) under Section 15C

of the SEBI Act. It was thus contended that since the penalty

imposed in the two matters are same the appellant was under a

bonafide belief that the said penalty was not to be paid.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of

the opinion that this cannot be a reasonable ground for condoning

the inordinate delay. The two orders are totally different and

distinct. Separate Adjudication proceedings have been initiated

which culminated in two different orders. We therefore do not find

any cogent or valid ground in condoning the delay. The application

is rejected as a result the appeal is also dismissed.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

Sd/-

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 27.03.2019 Prepared & Compared By: PK