Mr. Abhijeet C. Asai vs Sebi

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision : 08.03.2021

Misc. Application No. 57 of 2021 (Delay Application) And Misc. Application No. 58 of 2021 (Exemption from filing the certified copy) And Appeal No. 119 of 2021 Mr. Abhijeet C. Asai Room No. 9, Om Aaradhana Building, Kopar Cross Road, Near Sakharam Complex Auto Stand, Next to Shiwneri Bungalow, Dombivali (West), Thane - 421 202. ..... Appellant

Versus

Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent

Mr. Aayush Kothari, Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi, Mr. Sagar Hate, Advocates for the Appellant. Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocate with Ms. Kinjal Bhatt, Mr. Hersh Choudhary, Advocates i/b Vidhii Partners 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, Presiding Officer (Oral)

1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The

appellant has filed the present appeal questioning the order dated 2

November 20, 2020. There is a delay in the filing of the appeal. For

the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The

application is allowed.

2. The Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') of

Securities & Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as

'SEBI') passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs for

violation of Regulations 3 and 4 of Securities & Exchange Board of

India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating

to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as

'PFUTP Regulations'). The sole contention of the learned counsel

for the appellant is, that the transaction in question was never

executed by him and that he had questioned his broker as to how this

transaction had been taken place and, on this aspect, he has filed an

FIR which is pending consideration. This aspect has been dealt with

by the AO who has found that during the relevant period other

transactions had also been executed by the appellant which he

accepts and therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to

contend that he was unaware of this transaction or that he only came

to know about these transactions when he received the show cause

notice in the year 2017.

3. It was also urged that there has been delay in the institution

of the proceedings. Having heard on this aspect, we are satisfied that 3

there is no undue delay on the part of the respondent in initiating the

proceedings.

4. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed summarily at

the admission stage itself.

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 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

Dr. C. K. G Nair Member

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 08.03.2021 RAJALAK Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI SHMI H HDate:

NAIR PTM NAIR 2021.03.09 12:33:03 +05'30'