Mpf Systems Ltd. & Ors. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 133 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that, where an appellant files an appeal after receiving a show cause notice proposing enhancement of a penalty and a subsequent order imposing enhanced penalty pursuant to that notice, the period of limitation for the appeal against the enhanced order is reckoned from that subsequent order, so that a delay in filing measured from the earlier order may be condoned on a showing of sufficient cause. The Tribunal further holds that, pending hearing and disposal of the appeal, the recovery of the balance of a penalty may be stayed on the appellant's deposit of a specified part of the amount, with any amount already deposited under the impugned order to be adjusted accordingly.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date : 06.04.2021
Misc. Application No. 455 of 2021 And Appeal No. 133 of 2021
MPF Systems Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent
Mr. Pulkit Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat, Advocate i/b Mr. Harsh Kesharia, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Deepti Mohan, Mr. Hersh Choudhary, Ms. Nipa Paka and Ms. Riddhi Pawar, Advocates i/b Vidhii Partners for the Respondent.
ORDER:
1. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by
the appellant. There are two impugned orders dated February
28, 2020 and December 22, 2020. It has been stated that after
the order dated February 28, 2020 the appellants received a
show cause notice dated May 5, 2020 directing the appellant to
show cause as to why the penalty imposed pursuant to the order
of February 28, 2020 should not be enhanced. Based on this 2
show cause notice the authority has passed the impugned order
on December 22, 2020 and thereafter the appeal was filed.
Cause shown is sufficient. The delay in filing the appeal is
condoned. Misc. Application is allowed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Four weeks time is
allowed to the respondent to file a reply. Three weeks thereafter
to the appellant to file a rejoinder. The matter would be listed
for admission and for final disposal on June 14, 2021.
3. In the meanwhile, if the appellant deposits a sum of Rs. 17
lakh before the authority within four weeks from today, the
balance amount will not be recovered during the pendency of
the appeal. Any amount already deposited pursuant to the
impugned order shall be adjusted accordingly.
4. Parties are directed to take instructions from the Registrar
48 hours before the date fixed in order to find out as to whether
the matter would be taken up for hearing through video
conference or through physical hearing.
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 3
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 Judicial Member 06.04.2021 RAJALA Digitally by signed
msb KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H
Date: 2021.04.07 H NAIR 15:02:16 +05'30'
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