Hariharan Vaidyalingam vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal13 August 2020

CitationAppeal No.477 of 2018

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Securities Appellate Tribunal holds that a person whose bank accounts and immovable properties have been attached by the Recovery Officer, in enforcement of a recovery certificate under Section 28A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, may seek relief by filing an objection before the Recovery Officer under those provisions and the Rules made thereunder, and that objection is to be considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal holds that, pending disposal of the appeal, no interim order restraining the Recovery Officer's enforcement proceedings is warranted, and the application for interim relief is disposed of on that footing.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate : 13.8.2020Misc. Application No.210 of 2020(Application for Urgent Hearing)Misc. Application No.211 of 2020(Interim Application)AndAppeal No.477 of 2018Hariharan Vaidyalingam ...AppellantVersusSecurities and Exchange Board of India ...RespondentMr. Chetan Kapadia, Advocate with Ms. Sabeena Mahadik,Mr. Rahul Sarda, Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi, Mr. Sagar Hate andMr. Aayush Kothari, Advocates i/b Sabeena Mahadik for theAppellant.Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Modyand Mr. Shehaab Roshan, Advocate i/b. K. Ashar & Co. forthe Respondent.WithMisc. Application No.212 of 2020(Application for Urgent Hearing)Misc. Application No.213 of 2020(Interim Application)AndAppeal No.397 of 2019Hariharan Vaidyalingam ...AppellantVersusSecurities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent2Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Advocate with Ms. Sabeena Mahadik,Mr. Rahul Sarda, Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi, Mr. Sagar Hate andMr. Aayush Kothari, Advocates i/b Sabeena Mahadik for theAppellant.Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Modyand Mr. Shehaab Roshan, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. forthe Respondent.Order:1.We have heard Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Advocate assistedby Ms. Sabeena Mahadik, Mr. Rahul Sarda, Mr.Pankaj Uttaradhi, Mr. Sagar Hate and Mr. AayushKothari, Advocates for the Appellant and Mr.Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Mihir Mody and Mr. Shehaab Roshan, Advocatesfor the Respondent through video conferencing.2. Considering the facts and circumstances that has beenbrought on record, I direct that the two appeals willbe listed for hearing through video conferencing on2nd September, 2020 at 11.30 a.m. In themeanwhile, the paper book may be scanned andgiven to the Tribunal.33. A plea was made by the Appellant that some interimprotection may be granted as in the meanwhile theRespondent has not only attached the bank accountsbut has also attached two immovable propertieswhich are far in excess of the amount to berecovered under the impugned order. It was urgedthat pending disposal of the appeal direction beissued to the Recovery Officer not to proceedfurther.

3. I am of the view that it is open to the Appellant to file an

objection before the Recovery Officer under Section 28A of

the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read

with Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act and the Rules

connected therewith. If such an application is filed by the

Appellant the said application will be considered in

accordance with law.

4. I am not inclined to pass any interim order at this stage.

Misc. Application No.210 of 2020 for urgency and Misc.

Application No.211 of 2020 for interim relief in Appeal

No.477 of 2018 and Misc. Application No.212 of 2020 for

urgency and Misc. Application No.213 of 2020 for interim

relief in Appeal No.397 of 2019 are accordingly disposed of. 4

5. Parties are directed to contact the Registrar 48 hours

before the date fixed to find out as to whether the hearing

would take place through video conferencing or through

physical hearing.

6. 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 Presiding Officer 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.

TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac2a Justice Tarun Agarwala AGARWAL b7954d509c85ed6e0f7c41, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e799972 7d404aa38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.08.13 17:56:42 +05'30' Presiding Officer

13.8.2020 RHN

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