Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Colonel Krishna Kumar Singh vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal6 April 2018J.P. Devadhar

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A person against whom an adverse order is proposed to be passed by SEBI is entitled to receive a show cause notice before the order is passed, and this entitlement is not displaced by the fact that the person is a current director of the company concerned.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision : 06.04.2018

Misc. Application No. 340 of 2015 And Appeal No. 431 of 2015

Colonel Krishna Kumar Singh H. No. 622, 2nd Floor, Skylark Apartments, Plot No. 35, Sector No. 6, Dwarka, ...Appellant New Delhi - 110 075.

Versus [[

1.

Securities and Exchange Board of India Assistant General Manager, Northern Regional Office, 5th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Sansad Marg, Mumbai - 110 001.

2. Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ...Respondents Mumbai - 400 051.

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

Per : Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)

1. This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the Whole Time

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

('SEBI' for short) on August 14, 2015.

2. Basic grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order is passed

without issuing a Show Cause Notice ('SCN' for short) to the appellant.

2 3. Counsel for SEBI fairly states that in the present case SCN was not

issued to the appellant because he is the current director of the company.

4. In our opinion, even a current director is entitled to receive a SCN

before any order could be passed against him.

5. In this view of the matter, impugned order is quashed and set aside

qua the appellant with liberty to the SEBI to issue SCN to the appellant, if

deemed fit.

6. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

7. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the Misc. Application No. 340

of 2015 becomes infructuous and is disposed of accordingly with no order

as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 06.04.2018 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