Inventure Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 218 of 2015
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The continuation of an ex parte ad interim debarment order against a party, for a prolonged period without the final determination of the show cause proceedings, is not sustainable where considerable time has elapsed and the party is facing debarment without a final order against it; the regulator must, where it cannot conclude the proceedings within a reasonable time, reconsider the ex parte ad interim order and its confirmation and either pass a final order after affording the party an opportunity of hearing or decide the matter afresh.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 28.11.2019 Misc. Application No. 568 of 2019 And Misc. Application No. 622 of 2019 In Appeal No. 218 of 2015
Inventure Finance Pvt. Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India ... Respondent
Ms. Rinku Valanju, Advocate i/b R V Legal for the Appellant.
Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nishit Dhruva and Mr. Rohan Agrawal, Advocates i/b MDP & Partners for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It transpires that an ex parte ad interim order dated August
14, 2014 was passed by the Whole Time Member ('WTM' for
short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for
short) restraining the appellant from accessing the securities
market and prohibiting it from buying, selling or dealing in 2
the securities market. The said ex parte ad interim order was
confirmed on March 31, 2015. On December 7, 2017 a show
cause notice was issued under Section 11(1), 11(4) and 11B
of the SEBI Act, 1992 to show cause as to why suitable
directions should not be issued for the alleged violations
committed by the appellant. The appellant has appeared and
contesting the matter before the WTM of SEBI since 2017.
The hearing has been conducted and the appellant was last
heard on March 20, 2019. The proceedings are still going on
and have not been concluded.
2. On the other hand, the debarment order is continuing
since 2014 and the appellant has been restrained from the last
five years and the proceedings are not being concluded.
3. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the
respondent SEBI Shri Kevic Setalvad that the proceedings
against 116 entities have been issued and therefore the
hearing is taking some time. It was, thus, prayed that three
months time may be allowed to the respondent SEBI to pass
appropriate orders.
4. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that
considerable time has elapsed and the appellant is 3
unnecessary facing debarment without there being a final
order against it. If there are a large number of entities then the
WTM of SEBI should consider and pass separate orders
atleast insofar as the appellant is concerned.
5. We accordingly direct the WTM of SEBI to reconsider
the ex parte ad interim order and the confirmatory order in the
event it is not possible for the WTM to pass a final order
pursuant to the show cause notice after giving an opportunity
of hearing to the appellant on or before December 15, 2019.
6. Misc. Applications are disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 28.11.2019 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