Mr. Arup Kumar Roy vs Sebi

Date of Decision: 19.12.2017

Appeal No. 295 of 2016

Mr. Arup Kumar Roy Plot No. 43/P, Sy. No. 3, Madhavi Nagar, Hydersha Kote Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State- 500 091 ...Appellant

Versus

1.

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

2. Inforcare Infra Limited Kamdhenu Building, 75C Park Street, 11th Floor Room No.- 4, Kolkata- 700 016

3. Mr. Kousik Patra S/o. Kanailal, 56A, Harish Chatterjee Street, Kolkata- 700 026

4. Mr. Suresh Reddy S/o. Alpons Raja Reddy, R/o. 93/1E, Dr. Girindra Sekhar Bose Road, Kasba, Kolkata- 700 039

5. Mr. Abhijit Chakraborty S/o. Haridas Chakraborty, R/o. 4/21B, Netaji Nagar Colony, Kolkata- 700 040

6. Mr. Alok Singh, S/o. Madan Mohan Singh, R/o. 16/7, Dover Lane, Block C/2, Floor-8, Flat No. 54, Kolkata- 700 029 2

7. Mr. Pawan Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Shambhu Dayal Agarwal, Roopsagar Apartment, Baguipura, Baguihati, Kolkata- 700 059 ...Respondents

Mr. Ch. Srinivasa Raju, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sonam Shethia, Advocate i/b Juris Corp for the Respondent.

None for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7.

CORAM: Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per: Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)

1. This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the Whole

Time Member ("WTM" for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of

India ("SEBI" for short) on March 01, 2016. By the said order the

company Infocare Infra Limited and its directors including the appellant

have been, inter alia directed to refund the amount collected from the

investors with interest at the rate of 15% as per the scheme from the date

of collection till the date of actual payment.

2. It is not in dispute that the impugned order is an ex-parte order qua

the appellant. Case of the appellant is that no notice of hearing was

served on the appellant. From the document annexed to the affidavit in

reply filed by SEBI it is seen that the appellant had furnished his new

address to SEBI. There is nothing on record to suggest that notice of

hearing was sent to the appellant at his new address. In these

circumstances, impugned order dated March 01, 2016 is quashed and set 3

aside qua the appellant and the matter is restored to the file of WTM of

SEBI for passing fresh order on merits and in accordance with law.

3. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 19.12.2017 Prepared & Compared By: PK