Devang Mukundray Patel & Anr. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.541 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal against an Adjudicating Officer's penalty order may be allowed at the admission stage, without calling for a reply, where the controversy is identical to that in a co-noticee's appeal already allowed by the Tribunal and the earlier decision in Nishith M. Shah HUF is squarely applicable; a noticee in an identical position is entitled to the same relief, and the impugned order is quashed insofar as the appellant is concerned. A delay in filing an appeal is condoned where sufficient reasons are shown for the delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision:7.1.2021
Misc. Application No.599 of 2020 And Misc. Application No.600 of 2020 And Appeal No.541 of 2020
1.
Devang Mukundray Patel
2. Sonal Devang Patel B/87, C P Nagar, Vibhag-2, Near Hira Baugh Society, Bhuyangdev, Char Rasta, Ahmedabad-61. ...Appellants
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C-4A, "G" Block, Badra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051. ...Respondent
Mr. Shyam K. Shelat, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Manish Kumar Kant, Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Kinjal Bhatt and Mr. Hersh Choudhary, Advocates i/b. Vidhii Partners for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member 2
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
Misc. Application No.600 of 2020
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in
filing the appeal is condoned. The Misc. Application is
allowed.
Misc. Application no.599 of 2020 and Appeal No.541 of 2020
1. The present appeal has been filed against order
dated 25th June, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating
Officer imposing a penalty for violation of Regulations
3 and 4 of Securities and Exchange Board of India
(Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices
Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003.
Against the same order another notice Rajesh Kumar
had filed Appeal no.402 of 2020 which was allowed by
this Tribunal by judgment dated 19th November, 2020.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we
find that the controversy involved with the appellant is
the same as in the case of Rajesh Kumar. The decision 3
in the case of M/s. Nishith M. Shah HUF vs. SEBI
(Appeal No. 97 of 2019 decided on January 16, 2020)
is squarely applicable also in the instant case. Since
one of the noticee Rajesh Kumar was given the relief
the appellant is also entitled for the same relief. The
impugned order is quashed in so far as the appellant is
concerned. The appeal is allowed at the admission
stage itself without calling for a reply. Misc.
Application no.599 of 2020 is also accordingly
disposed of.
3. The present matter was heard through video
conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it
is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a
certified copy of this order could be issued by the
registry. In these circumstances, this order will be
digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of
the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act
on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will 4
act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax
and/or email.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Digitally signed by RAJALAKSH RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR Presiding Officer MI H NAIR Date: 2021.01.11 16:01:06 +05'30'
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 7.1.2021 RHN
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