Dr. Umesh Khariwala vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 174 of 2015
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned ex parte orders, passed without hearing the appellant on show cause notices sent to the company's address rather than the appellant's own address, cannot stand where the appellant had ceased to be a director before the notices were issued; such orders are quashed and the matter remitted to the adjudicating officer for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 20.08.2015
Appeal No. 174 of 2015
Dr. Umesh Khariwala Jai Lalaram Apartments, 18, 5th floor, Kharkar Lane, Thane - 400 601. ...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
WITH Appeal No. 175 of 2015
Dr. Umesh Khariwala Jai Lalaram Apartments, 18, 5th floor, Kharkar Lane, Thane - 400 601. ...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
Dr. Umesh Khariwala, Appellant-in-Person in Appeal Nos. 174 and 175 of 2015.
Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Manish Acharya, Advocate i/b Vigil Juris for the Respondent in Appeal Nos. 174 and 175 of 2015.
CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member
Per : J.P. Devadhar (Oral)
1.
These two appeals are filed to challenge the ex parte orders passed by
the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI on February 25, 2010 and
November 28, 2008 respectively.
2
2. Basic grievance of the appellant is that the impugned ex parte orders
are passed without hearing the appellant as the notices were sent to the
address of the company and not to the address of the appellant.
3. Since the appellant had ceased to be director of the company prior to
the issuance of the show cause notices, counsel for the SEBI fairly states
that the impugned orders dated February 25, 2010 and November 28, 2008
be quashed and set aside and the matters be restored to the file of the
adjudicating officer for passing fresh order on merits and in accordance with
law.
4. Accordingly, impugned orders dated February 25, 2010 and
November 28, 2008 are quashed and set aside and matters are restored to the
file of adjudicating officer for passing fresh order on merits and in
accordance with law.
5. Appellant-in-person states that the address shown in the memo of
appeal is the correct address of the appellant and that the requisite PAN
Card copy issued by the Income Tax Department will be furnished by the
appellant to SEBI within two weeks from today.
6. In these circumstances, SEBI is directed to lift the attachment levied
on the Bank Account and Fixed Deposits of the appellant forthwith.
7. These two appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order
as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Jog Singh Member 20.08.2015 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