Gauravi Parikh vs Sebi

The present appeal has been filed against the order of the

Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') of Securities

and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI')

dated June 5, 2018 imposing a penalty of Rs 15 lacs. There is a

delay of 301 days in the filing of the appeal and accordingly, an

application for condonation of delay has been filed. The ground

urged is that upon receiving the impugned order, the appellant

contacted her advocate and instructed him to file an appeal.

Subsequently, after some time when the appellant received the

recovery certificate, the appellant again informed the advocate to file

the appeal. It was further contended that the advocate by a letter

dated January 10, 2018 informed the appellant that the appeal has

already been preferred before the Securities Appellate Tribunal. The

appellant much later realized that the appeal had not been filed and

accordingly engaged another counsel and thereafter the present

appeal was filed. In the aforesaid, the appellant prayed that the delay

is not deliberate and may be condoned.

2. The Tribunal found the allegations against the advocate were

serious in nature and issued him a notice to explain the circumstances 3

as to why the appeal was not filed through him. In response to the

notice the advocate appeared and filed his reply and supplementary

replies contending that he had not made any misrepresentation and

that he was representing the company and used to give advice from

time to time. It was further contended that the advocate never

accepted the responsibilities of filing an appeal either on behalf of

the company or on behalf of its directors including the appellant,

since no vakalatnama was ever received nor the advocate raised any

invoices for the proposed services. It was contended that the letter

dated January 10, 2018 issued by his office on his behalf was issued

on the instructions given by the appellant's father. In view of the

assertions made, it was urged that the advocate should be discharged.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the advocate and

other counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the reply

given by the advocate is vague and is not satisfactory. Admittedly, a

letter dated January 10, 2018 was issued by the advocate which

contained incorrect contents. We leave the matter at that and do not

propose to take any further steps on the advocate. Considering the

aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be

penalized for the fault committed by the advocate. We accordingly

condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is

accordingly allowed.

4

4. Let the appeal be listed for admission on February 24, 2021.

5. 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 Judicial Member 15.02.2021 RAJALAKS Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI H HMI H NAIR PTM NAIR Date: 2021.02.17 14:45:00 +05'30'