Dr. Jugal Kishore Satapathy vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 61 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a quasi-judicial order adversely affects a party and the record shows that notice of the hearing was never personally served on that party, the order cannot stand as against that party; it is set aside qua that party, and the regulator is directed to pass a fresh order after affording that party an opportunity of hearing, without any adjudication of the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 18.01.2018
Misc. Application No. 55 of 2017 And Appeal No. 61 of 2017
Dr. Jugal Kishore Satapathy Plot No. A/7, Phase II, Krishna Garden Complex, Barabari, ...Appellant Bhuvaneshwar - 30.
Versus [[
1.
Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
2. Micro Finance Ltd. Annpurna House, Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar - 751001.
3. Mr. Durga Prasad Misra Annpurna House, Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar - 751001.
4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Patnaik Annpurna House, Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar - 751001.
5. Mr. Baikuntha Nath Patnaik Annpurna House, Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar - 751001.
6. Ms. Padmabati Patnaik Annpurna House, Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar - 751001.
7. Ms. Shantilata Patnaik Annpurna House, Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar - 751001.
8. Ms. Sashi Patnaik Annpurna House, Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar - 751001.
9. Mr. Haricharan Jena Annpurna House, Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar - 751001.
10. Mr. Dharmananda Swain Annpurna House, Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar - 751001.
2 11. Mr. Bijoy Kumar Rautray Annpurna House, Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar - 751001. ...Respondents
Ms. Kainaz Irani, Advocate i/b M/s. Mohanty & Associates for the Appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chirag Bhavsar, Advocate i/b MDP & Partners for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)
Misc. Application No. 55 of 2017:-
1. By this Miscellaneous Application appellant seeks waiver of court
fees payable on the present appeal.
2. By our order dated February 6, 2017 we had permitted the appellant
to withdraw Appeal No. 475 of 2016 with liberty to file fresh appeal within
a period of two weeks from that day. Since the present appeal is filed
pursuant to the directions given by our aforesaid order dated February 6,
2017, registry is directed to adjust the court fees paid on Appeal No. 475 of
2016 towards the court fees payable on the present appeal.
3. Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly with no order
as to costs.
Appeal No. 61 of 2017:-
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 October 27, 2016. By the said order Micro Finance
Ltd. and its promoters and directors including the appellant are, inter alia, 3
directed jointly and severally to refund the monies collected through the
issuance of Cumulative Convertible Preference Shares to the allottees with
interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of receipt of money till
the date of such refund.
2. Basic grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order is passed
without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant.
3. Learned Counsel for SEBI fairly states that in the present case no
document is available on record to show that the notice of hearing was
personally served on the appellant. However, counsel for SEBI submitted
that by a public notice the date of personal hearing was intimated to the
appellant.
4. Since the notice of hearing was not personally served on the
appellant, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to set aside the
impugned order qua the appellant and direct SEBI to pass fresh order after
hearing the appellant.
5. Accordingly, without going in to the merits of the case, we quash the
impugned order qua the appellant and direct SEBI to pass fresh order after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
6. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Jog Singh Member
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 18.01.2018 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