Dinesh Modi vs Sebi

Dinesh Modi 1404, Octavius, Hiranandani, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 076 ...Appellant

Mr. Tomu Francis, Ms. Arka Saha and Ms. Ankita Roy Advocates i/b Khaitan & Co. for the Appellant.

AND

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C4-A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 ...Respondent

Mr. JP Sen, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Chhangani, Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent- SEBI.

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF THE SEBI ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE THE LETTER DATED DECEMBER 20, 2024 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER OF SEBI. 2

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND THE TRIBUNAL MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Per: Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral)

We have heard Shri Tomu Francis, learned advocate for

the appellant and Shri J P Sen, learned senior advocate for the

respondent.

2. In substance, the appellant has submitted that he was

working as CFO1 in the Eros International Media Limited

("Company" for short) between 2014 and 2017. In July 2024 he

received a show cause notice in respect of certain irregularities

alleged to have been committed by him. He requested the

Company to furnish certain documents. The Company has not

provided any documents. Simultaneously, he has requested the

SEBI2 to direct the Company to make available the documents.

The said request is not yet considered. Hence this appeal.

3. Shri Tomu Francis submitted that in the absence of

relevant papers, appellant will not be in a position to submit his

reply. He prayed that SEBI may be directed to instruct the

Company to make available the papers sought by the appellant.

1 Chief Financial Officer 2 Securities and Exchange Board of India 3

4. Shri J P Sen, learned senior advocate for the respondent-

SEBI submitted that the appellant is required to furnish the

reply based on the documents that he may possess or which he

may procure from his erstwhile employer. SEBI is under no

obligation to make available the documents. He further

submitted that the SEBI does not have the documents which the

appellant has requested.

5. Admittedly, a show cause notice has been issued by the

SEBI. The appellant was an ex-employee of the Company and

the Company is not co-operating by furnishing the documents

required by the appellant. SEBI is the Regulator. In the

peculiar facts of this case, in our opinion, ends of justice would

be met by directing the SEBI to issue necessary instructions to

the Company to furnish the documents sought for by the

appellant to enable him to defend his cause.

6. As prayed for by Shri Sen, learned senior advocate it is

clarified that this order is passed in the peculiar facts of this case

and shall not be treated as a precedent. 4

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending

interlocutory application(s) stand disposed of.

No costs.

Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer

Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member

Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar PRERNA Digitally signed Technical Member by PRERNA 04.04.2025 MANISH MANISH KHARE PK Date: 2025.04.15 KHARE 16:55:23 +05'30'