Morepen Laboratories Limited vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal4 December 2020Tarun Agarwala

CitationAppeal No. 412 of 2020

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Officer's proceedings under the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposition of Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 may be initiated and continue simultaneously with proceedings before the Whole Time Member, because Rule 4(3) of those Rules permits such concurrent proceedings; accordingly, a party cannot obtain a stay of adjudication proceedings merely on the ground that the same issue is pending in an appeal against the Whole Time Member's order.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision : 04.12.2020Misc. Application No. 366 of 2020(Urgency Application)AndMisc. Application No. 367 of 2020(Interim Application)AndMisc. Application No 525 of 2020(Delay Application)AndAppeal No. 412 of 2020Morepen Laboratories LimitedMorepen Village,Nalagarh Road, Near Baddi,District - Solan Naka, Solapur,Himachal Pradesh - 173205. ..... AppellantVersusSecurities and Exchange Board of IndiaSEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400 051. ... RespondentMr. P. R. Ramesh, Advocate i/b Ms. Noelle Ann Park,Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Modyand Mr. Arnav Misra, Advocates i/b K Ashar & Co for theRespondent.CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding OfficerJustice M.T. Joshi, Judicial MemberPer : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)21.We have heard Shri P.R. Ramesh, the learned counselfor the appellant and Shyam Mehta, the learned seniorcounsel for the respondent through video conference.2. The present appeal has been filed for the quashing of thenotice issued by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) ofthe Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short)fixing a date for hearing pursuant to a show cause noticedated June 26, 2018. The contention of the appellant is, thatthe issue involved before the AO is virtually the same as thatwas raised in the order of the Whole Time Member ('WTM'for short) against which Appeal No. 62 of 2020 has beenfiled. It was contended that the AO should await the disposalof the appeal of the appellant and thus contended that the AOorder should be stayed till the disposal of appeal of appellantagainst the order of WTM.3. In our view the submissions of the appellant cannot beaccepted in as much as simultaneously proceedings can beinitiated by the WTM as well as by the AO under Rule 4(3) ofthe SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposition ofPenalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995.34. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interferein the proceedings pending before the AO. The appeal failsand is dismissed with no order as to costs. We also direct the

appellant to get the Appeal No. 62 of 2020 listed on the

virtual platform by moving an appropriate application. All the

Misc. Applications are disposed of.

5. 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 Presiding Officer 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 TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac2a Presiding Officer AGARWAL b7954d509c85ed6e0f7c41, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e799972 7d404aa38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.12.04 21:18:55 +05'30'

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 04.12.2020 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