Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dr. Umesh Khariwala vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal20 August 2015J.P. Devadhar

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

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

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