Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Aventis Biofeeds Private Limited vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal14 September 2016J.P. Devadhar

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A quasi-judicial order passed by the Whole Time Member of SEBI is liable to be set aside where it neither considers the earlier order passed by the WTM in respect of the same violations nor considers the submissions made by the affected parties in their reply. Where such an order is set aside, the appellate authority may direct the regulator to defreeze the bank and demat accounts of the appellants, and may permit the appellants to file an additional reply and be offered a personal hearing before a fresh order is passed in accordance with law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision : 14.09.2016

Appeal No. 234 of 2016

Aventis Biofeeds Private Limited 101, 1st Floor, Ashok Tower, Tower "C", Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012. ...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. P.N. Modi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Ms. Kalpana Desai and Mr. K.C. Jacob, Advocates i/b Corporate Law Chambers India for the Appellant.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

WITH

Appeal No. 235 of 2016

Betul Minerals & Construction Private Limited Kothi Bazar, Betul Distt. Betul MP 460001 India ...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. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. K.C. Jacob, Advocate i/b Corporate Law Chambers India for the Appellant.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent. 2

WITH

Appeal No. 236 of 2016

Betul Oils & Feeds Pvt. Limited 117, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. ...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. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. K.C. Jacob, Advocate i/b Corporate Law Chambers India for the Appellant.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

WITH Appeal No. 237 of 2016

Sunmate Trade Private Limited 117, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. ...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. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. K.C. Jacob, Advocate i/b Corporate Law Chambers India for the Appellant.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent. 3

WITH

Appeal No. 238 of 2016

Shreyans Credit & Capital Private Limited Kothi Bazar, Betul Distt. Betul MP 460001. ...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. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. K.C. Jacob, Advocate i/b Corporate Law Chambers India for the Appellant.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

WITH

Appeal No. 239 of 2016

Navinya Multitrade Private Limited 207/208, 2nd Floor, Tower 'C', Ashok Towers, ...Appellant Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012.

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. J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Ghogre, Advocate i/b Akhileshwar Sharma for the Appellant.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent. 4

WITH

Appeal No. 240 of 2016

Uni24 Techno Solutions Private Limited 6/18, 2nd Floor, Grants Building, Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 400 005. ...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. J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Ghogre, Advocate i/b Akhileshwar Sharma for the Appellant.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per : J.P. Devadhar (Oral)

1.

In all these appeals appellants have challenged the order passed by the

Whole Time Member ('WTM' for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of

India ('SEBI' for short) on June 7, 2016.

2. It is not in dispute that in the impugned order the WTM of SEBI has

neither considered the earlier order passed by the WTM of SEBI on

December 6, 2013 relating to the very same violations, nor the WTM of SEBI

has considered the submissions made by the appellants in their reply. In these

circumstances, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated June 7, 2016

and direct SEBI to defreeze all bank accounts and demat accounts of the

appellants forthwith.

5

3. It is made clear that if the appellants file any additional reply within two

weeks from today, then the WTM of SEBI may offer personal hearing to the

appellants within two weeks thereafter and pass appropriate order in

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

4. Till SEBI passes fresh order, the bank accounts and demat accounts of

the appellants shall be used only for the purpose of carrying on the business in

the ordinary course.

5. All the above appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Jog Singh Member

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

14.09.2016 Prepared and compared by:

msb

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