M/S Yes Investments vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 22.03.2016

Misc. Application No. 189 of 2014 And Appeal No. 420 of 2014

M/s Yes Investments Flat No. 14, Band Stand Apartments, Band Stand, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050. ...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

Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Vinay Chauhan and Mr. K.C. Jacob, Advocates i/b Corporate Law Chambers India for the Appellant.

Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tomu Francis, Advocate for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member

Per : J.P. Devadhar (Oral)

Misc. Application No. 189 of 2014:-

1.

By this Misc. Application appellant seeks condonation of delay of

20 days in filing the Appeal No. 420 of 2014. For the reasons stated in the

Misc. Application, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, Misc. Application is

disposed of with no order as to costs.

Appeal No. 420 of 2014:-

2. This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the Adjudicating

Officer of Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) on 2

August 27, 2014 whereby penalty of Rs. 2 crore is imposed on the appellant

u/s 15HA of SEBI Act, 1992.

3. It is not in dispute that in case of Mr. Vishal Kishore Bhatia who is

the sole proprietor of the appellant, the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI has

passed an order on May 12, 2011 in similar circumstances to the effect that

it is not a fit case for imposing penalty u/s 15 HA of SEBI Act. Admittedly,

the said decision of SEBI was neither placed before the Adjudicating

Officer nor considered by the Adjudicating Officer.

4. Apart from the above, in view of the conflicting views of the Apex

Court in the case of SEBI vs. Roofit Industries Ltd., reported in (2016)

194 Comp. Cas.186 (S.C.), and Siddharth Chaturvedi vs. SEBI (Civil

Appeal No. 14730 of 2015 decided on March 14, 2016) relating to the

discretionary power of Adjudicating Officer while imposing penalty under

Section 15 HA of SEBI Act, counsel for the parties state that the order

impugned in the appeal be quashed and set aside and the matter be restored

to the file of the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI for passing fresh order on

merits and in accordance with law by leaving all contentions open.

5. Accordingly, order impugned in the appeal is quashed and set aside

and matter is restored to the file of Adjudicating Officer of SEBI for passing

fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. All contentions of both

parties are kept open.

6. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer Sd/-

Jog Singh Member 22.03.2016 Prepared and compared by:

msb