Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S. Ethan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal17 February 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a show cause notice is sent to an address other than the one the party has designated or that is correct, and the adjudicating authority proceeds ex parte on that basis without the party having been heard, the proceedings stand vitiated as a violation of the principles of natural justice, and the resulting order is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication with the notice properly served.

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 : 17.02.2022 Misc. Application No. 107 of 2022 And Misc. Application No. 108 of 2022 And Misc. Application No. 109 of 2022 And Appeal No. 72 of 2022 M/s. Ethan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 6, Floor-0, Neelkanth, Netaji Subhash Road, Todi Park, Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400 002. ..... 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 Mrs. Rinku Valanju, Advocate with Mr. Pratham Masurekar, Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Aditya Shah, Ms. Jheel Thakkar, Mr. Karan Asrani, Advocates i/b R V Legal for the Appellant. Mr. Abhishek Khare, Advocate with Mr. Sharvil Kala, Advocate i/b Khare Legal Chambers for the Respondent. CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated November 24, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India 2 ('SEBI' for short) imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh.

There is a delay in the filing of the appeal. The ground urged in the application for condonation of delay as well as in the memo of appeal is common and same are being dealt together. 2. It has been urged that the entire proceedings is ex parte and the appellant was never served with the show cause notice nor given an opportunity of hearing and that the impugned order passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. 3. In this regard it was contended that a show cause notice was served to the appellant on the wrong address at [email protected] whereas the correct e-mail address was [email protected]. 4. This fact is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent who contends that the show cause notice was sent at the wrong address. 5. In view of the aforesaid admission, we are of the opinion that the entire order proceeded ex parte and was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed. The impugned order is also set aside. The appeal is allowed. The 3 matter is remitted to the AO to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

In this regard the appellant will appear before the AO on February 28, 2022 on which date the appellant would be served with the show cause notice and from there onwards the matter will proceed in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs. The miscellaneous applications for stay and exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned orders are also disposed of. 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 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 RAJALA Digitally signed Judicial Member by RAJALAKSHMI 17.02.2022 KSHMI HDate:

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