Mr. Deepak & Anr. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.564 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned in view of the Supreme Court's suo motu orders extending limitation during the COVID-19 period, and the application for condonation of delay is allowed. Where the controversy in an appeal is squarely covered by an earlier decision of the same Tribunal arising from the same impugned adjudication order, the appellant is entitled to similar relief, and the appeal may be disposed of by applying that earlier decision.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 19.9.2022 Misc. Application No.1048 of 2022 And Appeal No.564 of 2022 1. Mr. Deepak A-68A, Kunwar Singh Nagar, Near Nilothi, Nangloi, New Delhi-110 041. 2. Mr. Ashok Kumar A-68A, Kunwar Singh Nagar, Near Nilothi, Nangloi, New Delhi-110 041. ...Appellants Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent Mr. Ashok Singh, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Suraj Chaudhary, Advocate with Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey and Ms. Shefali Shankar, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent. CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member 2 Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the order of the Supreme Court in suo moto writ petition (civil) no(s).3/2020 dated 23rd March, 2020, 8th March, 2021, 27th April, 2021 and 10th January, 2022, the delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by a decision of this Tribunal dated 13th May, 2022 in Appeal no.27 of 2022 Akash & Ors. vs. SEBI which was against the same impugned order of the Adjudicating Officer decided on 29th May, 2020. In the said decision, we had observed and passed the following order: 3. In view of the aforesaid, the appellant is also entitled for a similar relief. 4. For the reasons stated aforesaid and in view of the decision dated 13th May, 2022 in Appeal no.27 of 2022, the appeal is partly allowed. The violation is affirmed. However the penalty is reduced to Rs.2 lakhs which shall be paid by the appellants jointly and severally within four weeks from today. 5. 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. 4 Certified copy of this order is also available from the Registry on payment of usual charges. Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member RAJALA Digitally by signed KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H 19.9.2022 Date: 2022.09.21 H NAIR 16:12:31 +05'30' 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