Arun Panchariya vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 875 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed as infructuous where the appellant, without prejudice to his contentions on the merits, voluntarily undertakes to deposit the penalty imposed by the impugned order, and the Tribunal grants time for that deposit; the Tribunal does not reach the merits of the penalty order in such circumstances. A direction that no interest be charged on a penalty which, if unpaid, attracts interest is refused, since the statutory consequence of non-deposit of the penalty cannot be displaced by an order of the Tribunal in the appellant's favour.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Arun Panchariya, Individual 28, Woodlands Ride ASCOT SL5 9HN BERKSHIRE United Kingdom ...Appellant
Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate with Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.
AND
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C4-A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 ...Respondent
Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Nair, Advocate i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Respondent.
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF THE SEBI ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2023 PASSED BY THE AO, SEBI.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND THE TRIBUNAL MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2
ORDER
Per: Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral)
Shri Sandeep Wadhawan, learned advocate for the appellant
submits that without prejudice to the appellant's contentions in
the order passed by the AO1 in respect of the same transaction,
appellant voluntarily desires to deposit the penalty imposed by
the SEBI2 in the impugned order and prays for eight weeks to
make the deposit. His submission is placed on record.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant, sought for a direction
against the SEBI not to charge any interest on the penalty
amount. The same is opposed by the learned senior advocate for
the respondent. We see some force in the contention of learned
advocate for the SEBI in this behalf because penalty, if not
deposited, attracts interest. Hence, prayer for such direction
against SEBI is rejected.
3. In view of appellant's submission expressing his desire to
deposit the penalty nothing further survives for consideration.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as infructuous granting
eight weeks to the appellant to deposit the penalty with the SEBI.
1 Adjudicating Officer 2 Securities and Exchange Board of India 3
4. Pending interlocutory application(s) stand disposed of.
No costs.
Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member
Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar PRERNA Digitally signed by PRERNA Technical Member 27.01.2025 MANISH MANISH KHARE Date: 2025.01.31 PK KHARE 12:38:15 +05'30'
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