Bharatkumar Baldevbhai Parmar vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.86 of 2015
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The delay of 35 days in filing Appeal No.139 of 2015 is condoned on the reasons stated in the miscellaneous application, which the Tribunal accepted. Where both parties consent, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in SEBI v. Roofit Industries Ltd., the impugned adjudication orders may be quashed and set aside as against the appellants, and the matters restored to the file of the Adjudicating Officer for fresh determination on merits and in accordance with law, with all contentions of both parties left open.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of decision: 18/03/2016
Appeal No.86 of 2015
Bharatkumar Baldevbhai Parmar B/1, Mangal Tirth Tower, B/H Dharnidhar Derasar, Opp. Gopi Ice Cream, Vasna, Ahmedabad - 380 007. ...Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent
WITH Appeal No.105 of 2015
Amar Prem Walmiki Room No.694, Sangam Nagar, Antop Hill, M.S. Road, Near VIT College, Wadala, Mumbai - 400 037. ...Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent -2-
WITH Misc. Application No.95 of 2015 And Appeal No.139 of 2015
Anand Kalu Marathe Karayekar Chawl, Kamlabai Niwas, Koliwada, Vasai (West), Thane - 401 202. ...Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent
Dr. S.K. Jain, PCS for Appellants.
Mr. Kumar Desai a/w Mr. Tomu Francis, Advocates for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member
Per : Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)
Misc. Application No.95 of 2015 in Appeal No.139 of 2015:
By this Misc. Application, Appellant seeks condonation of 35 days
delay in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the Misc. application,
delay is condoned. Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal Nos.86, 105 & 139 of 2015:
1.
In the light of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of SEBI vs.
Roofit Industries Ltd., reported in (2016) 194 Comp. Cas.186 (S.C.), Counsel
for the parties state that the orders impugned in the respective Appeals be
quashed and set aside and the matters be restored to the file of the
Adjudicating Officer of SEBI for passing fresh orders on merits and in -3-
accordance with law by leaving all contentions open. Accordingly, orders
impugned in the respective Appeals are quashed and set aside qua the
Appellants and the matters are restored to the file of Adjudicating Officer of
SEBI for passing fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. All
contentions of both the parties are kept open.
2. All the Appeals and Misc. Application are disposed of in the above
terms with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Jog Singh Member 18/3/2016 Prepared & compared by-ddg
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