Mr. Devang Dadia vs Sebi

DATE : 29.06.2017

Misc. Application No. 6 of 2017 And Appeal No. 5 of 2017

Mr. Devang Dadia 9/C, Anupam Building, Karani Lane, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - 400 086. ..... Appellant

Versus

Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ...... Respondent

With Misc. Application No. 26 of 2017 And Appeal No. 28 of 2017

Mr. Devang Dadia 9/C, Anupam Building, Karani Lane, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - 400 086. ..... Appellant

Versus

Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ...... Respondent

Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. S. P. Bharti, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sukharamani, Mr. Siddha Pamecha, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

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

Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral) 2

Misc. Application No. 6 of 2017 in Appeal No. 5 of 2017 and Misc. Application No. 26 of 2017 in Appeal No. 28 of 2017

1.

By these two misc. applications the appellant seeks condonation of

2502 days delay in filing appeal No. 5 of 2017 and 2608 days delay in

filing Appeal No. 28 of 2017.

2. Appeal No. 5 of 2017 is filed to challenge the order passed by the

Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of

India ('SEBI' for short) on January 21, 2010 whereby penalty of ` 8 lakh is

imposed on the appellant under Section 15HA of the Securities and

Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ('SEBI Act' for short) for executing

synchronized trades repeatedly over a period of time thereby creating

artificial volume in the nine scrips at NSE in gross violation of the SEBI

Act and the Regulations made thereunder.

3. Appeal No. 28 of 217 is filed by the same appellant to challenge the

order of AO dated September 24, 2009 whereby the appellant was directed

to pay penalty of ` 1 lakh under Section 15HA of SEBI Act for violating

Regulations 3, 4(b) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition

of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market)

Regulations, 1995 ('PFUTP Regulations' for short) read with Regulations

4(1), 4(2)(a), (b) and (g) of Securities and Exchange Board of India

(Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities

Market) Regulations, 2003.

4. In the above two misc. applications, it is stated that the appellant is

not in a position to recollect whether the respective orders were served

upon the appellant or not. However, the Constituted Attorney of the

appellant has claimed that since last several years the appellant is sick and 3

suffering from chronic diseases and, therefore, the appellant could not file

appeals within the stipulated time. It is further stated that the father of the

appellant who was looking after the case of the appellant was also suffering

from various ailments and ultimately the father of the appellant passed

away on July 20, 2016. In support of the contention that the appellant and

the father of the appellant were suffering from various ailments the

applicant has annexed various documents. In these circumstances, it is

submitted that the delay in filing the appeals be condoned.

5. We see no merits in the above contentions.

6. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of SEBI, several documents

are annexed to demonstrate that the show cause notices as also the

impugned orders were duly served upon the appellant from time to time.

The appellant has not doubted the sanctity of those documents. Thus, it is

apparent that the impugned orders were duly served on the appellant.

Inspite of receiving the impugned orders, the appellant neither implemented

the impugned orders nor challenged the impugned orders. Assuming that

the appellant could not file appeals due to illness, at least on initiation of

criminal proceedings in the year 2014, appellant ought to have taken steps

to challenge the impugned orders. However, the appellant failed to do so.

7. It is only after criminal proceedings continued for more than two

years the appellant chose to file these two appeals belatedly in January

2017.

8. It is relevant to note that even today it is claimed that the appellant is

sick. In such a situation, why the appeals could not be filed earlier through

the Constituted Attorney is not explained in the Misc. Applications. 4

9. In these circumstances, we see no reason to condone an inordinate

delay of 2502 and 2608 days in filing these appeals. Accordingly, both the

misc. applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.

10. In view of the dismissal of the aforesaid misc. applications, both

the appeals become infructuous and, accordingly, both the appeals are

disposed of as infructuous.

11. Thus, both the misc. applications as also both the appeals are

disposed of with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Jog Singh Member

Sd/-

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member 29.06.2017 Prepared & Compared by PTM