Mahendra Kumar vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.141 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, on examining the penalty imposed under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act for contravention of Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the Act and Regulations 3(a)–(d) read with Regulation 4 of the PFUTP Regulations, held that where the violation is established and the penalty is free of any error of law, the penalty will not be disturbed on that account; the Tribunal may nonetheless moderate the mode of its realisation by taking into account the appellant's pecuniary circumstances and his willingness to pay, permitting payment of the penalty by a fixed date in lieu of the balance of the impugned order's enforcement.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 25.4.2019
Misc. Application No.208 of 2019 And Appeal No.141 of 2019
Mahendra Kumar No.19/2, Rangarao Road, Shankarapuram, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560 004. .... Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051. ... Respondent
Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate i/b. Juris Link for the Appellant.
Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate i/b. ELP for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
Misc. Application No.208 of 2019
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in
filing the application is condoned.
The Misc. Application is allowed. 2
Appeal No.141 of 2019
1.
The appellant has challenged the order dated
28th March, 2018 by which a penalty of Rs.10 lakh has been
imposed under Section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange
Board of India Act, 1992 (referred to hereinafter as 'SEBI
Act') for violating Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI
Act and Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) read with Regulation 4
of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of
Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities
Market) Regulations, 2003 (referred to hereinafter as
'PFUTP Regulations').
2. After hearing the matter at some length we find that the
violation is writ large and consequently penalty imposed does
not suffer from any error of law. However, considering the
facts and circumstances and the pecuniary situation of the
appellant as well as the contention of the appellant that he is
willing to pay the entire amount of Rs.10 lakh within two
weeks from today, we direct the appellant to deposit a sum of
Rs.10 lakhs on or before 15th May, 2019 before the SEBI. In
the event, the appellant deposits a sum of Rs.10 lakh on or
before 15th May, 2019 before the respondent no further
amount shall be realised pursuant to the impugned order. If a 3
cheque is issued by the appellant SEBI will issue a
consequential direction to the related bank to allow
encashment of the cheque to that extent.
3. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member
Sd/-
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member
25.4.2019 Prepared and compared by 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