Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dr. Jugal Kishore Satapathy vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal18 January 2018J.P. Devadhar

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

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

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