Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Fairwealth Securities Limited vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal13 September 2021Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal was disposed of by consent of the parties on undisputed facts, with the appellant not challenging the underlying adjudication order; the order rests on no legal principle beyond directing recovery in compliance with that order.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision: 13.09.2021

Misc. Application No. 997 of 2021 And Misc. Application No. 1002 of 2021 And Appeal No. 589 of 2021

Fairwealth Securities Limited A-312 to A-323, Somdutt Chambers-I, Building No. 5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi- 110 066 ...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

Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Kapila Mahendroo, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Bhushan Shah, Mr. Chirag Shah, Mr Akash Jain and Ms. Daksha Kasekar, Advocates i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2

1.

The appellant has challenged the email issued by the

Recovery Officer ("RO" for convenience) dated May 21, 2021

directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs pursuant

to the Adjudicating Officer's ("AO" for convenience) of the

Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for

convenience) order dated January 18, 2021 failing which

interest would also be levied and recovered under the Act.

2. There a delay of 57 days in the filing of the appeal. For

the reasons stated in the application, cause shown is sufficient.

The delay is condoned. The application is allowed.

3. We find that an ex-parte ad-interim order dated October

11, 2019 was passed which was confirmed on January 24, 2020.

Through these orders the appellant was restrained from making

any debits from his bank accounts. These orders are still

continuing. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on

August 24, 2020 pursuant to which the AO passed an order

dated January 18, 2021 imposing a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs.

4. The appellant is not challenging the order of January 18,

2021 at this stage and only contends that he is unable to pay the

amount as his accounts has been frozen and therefore has

requested the RO to recover the amount from his bank accounts. 3

5. In the light of these facts which are undisputed we dispose

of the appeal directing the RO to recover the amount of Rs. 30

lakhs from the appellant's bank account in compliance of the

AO's order dated January 18, 2021.

6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The Misc.

Applications are also disposed of.

7. The present matter was heard through video conference

due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign

a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be

issued by the Registry. In these circumstances, this order will be

digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench

and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally

signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a

digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Justice M. T. Joshi Digitally signed RAJALA byRAJALAKSHMI H Judicial Member 13.09.2021 KSHMI NAIR PK Date:

H NAIR 2021.09.14 16:54:12 +05'30'

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