Fairwealth Securities Limited vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 589 of 2021
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
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