Danesh Pandit vs Sebi

Date of Decision: 10.06.2019

Misc. Application No. 300 of 2019 And Misc. Application No. 301 of 2019 And Misc. Application No. 304 of 2019 And Appeal No. 236 of 2019

Danesh Pandit S/o Shri Jawahar Lal Pandit G- 404, Krish Vatika, Bhiwadi, Rajsthan- 301 019 ...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. Arvind Kr. Jadon, Advocate i/b Law Chambers of Arvind and Arvind for the Appellant.

Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocate i/b ELP 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.

The appellant has challenged the order of the Adjudicating

Officer ("AO" for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of 2

India ("SEBI" for short) dated May 19, 2015. There is a delay

of 1438 days in filing the present appeal. The appeal is

accompanied by an application for condoning the delay. The

ground urged is that the appellant was never served with the

show cause notice and that they came to know about the

impugned order only when the bank account was attached.

2. The impugned order indicates that service upon the

appellant was done by affixation at the last known address

namely, at U-27 A Near Subway, Shakarpur, Delhi- 110 092.

This address is not disputed by the appellant. The appellant

only contends that he is presently residing in Rajasthan and that

he was never served with the show cause notice or with any

kind of summons. We, however find that the service by

affixation has not been disputed/ denied by the appellant.

3. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent

Shri Vivek Shah has produced a photo copy of the service report

with regard to affixation. The said service report indicates that

the summons were duly affixed at the last known address of the

appellant on February 03, 2015.

3

4. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to

condone the delay since no sufficient cause has been shown.

The appellant was duly served by affixiation.

5. The application for condonation of delay is rejected as a

result of which the other Misc. Applications as well as 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 10.06.2019 Prepared & Compared By: PK