Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Jaykishor Chaturvedi & Ors. vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal29 September 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a penalty imposed by an Adjudicating Officer under the SEBI Act has become final and remains unpaid beyond the 45-day period, interest is payable under Section 28A of the SEBI Act, and the statutory liability to pay that interest is not defeated by the appellant's contention that interest could not be charged or that it is disproportionate to the penalty imposed.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 29.9.2022 Misc. Application No.891 of 2022 And Misc. Application No.892 of 2022 And Appeal No.626 of 2022 Jaykishor Chaturvedi 24, Suvernapuri Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara, Gujarat 390007. ...Appellant Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, "G" Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai Maharashtra- 400051. ...Respondent Mr. Ranit Basu, Advocate with Ms. Maitri Malde, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey and Ms. Shefali Shankar, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent. With Misc. Application No.893 of 2022 And Misc. Application No.894 of 2022 And Appeal No.627 of 2022 Siddharth Jaykishor Chaturvedi 24, Suvernapuri Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara, Gujarat 390007. ...Appellant 2 Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, "G" Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400051. ...Respondent Mr. Ranit Basu, Advocate with Ms. Maitri Malde, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey and Ms. Shefali Shankar, Advocates i/b.

MDP & Partners for the Respondent. With Misc. Application No.895 of 2022 And Misc. Application No.896 of 2022 And Appeal No.628 of 2022 Ankur Jaykishor Chaturvedi 24, Suvernapuri Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara, Gujarat 390007. ...Appellant Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, "G" Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400051. ...Respondent Mr. Ranit Basu, Advocate with Ms. Maitri Malde, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey and Ms. Shefali Shankar, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent. CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member 3 Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Order) 1. All these appeals raise a common issue and therefore these appeals are being decided together at the admission stage itself. 2. There is a delay in the filing of the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. The exemption application is also allowed.

The appellants are exempted from filing the certified copy of the impugned order. 3. In all these appeals, the appellant has challenged notice of attachment of the bank accounts and demat account pursuant to the attachment proceedings. 4. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal is, that in the year 2014-15, the Adjudicating Officer passed an order imposing a penalty. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before this Tribunal which was dismissed against which a civil appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court which was dismissed in the year 2019. Thus, the order of the AO 4 has become final and the amount of penalty imposed was liable to be paid. This amount has not as yet been paid by the appellant and, consequently, the Recovery Officer initiated recovery proceedings and issued a notice of attachment which has been impugned in the present appeal. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that interest could not be charged and, in the alternative, it is high and disproportionate to the quantum of penalty imposed initially by the AO. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by the appellant.

Admittedly, the amount of penalty has not yet been paid even though it was passed eight years back. If the amount is not paid within 45 days then interest is payable under Section 28A of the SEBI Act. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any merit and therefore all the appeals are dismissed on the same terms. 7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned 5 parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Certified copy of this order is also available from the Registry on payment of usual charges. Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member RAJALA Digitally by signed KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H 29.9.2022 Date: 2022.10.03 H NAIR 15:41:50 +05'30' 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