Mr. Dilip Kumar Pipalwa & Anr. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.410 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A party who has accepted an adjudicating order and complied with it by paying the penalty in satisfaction of that order, without having paid under protest or otherwise reserved a right to challenge it, is precluded from thereafter filing an appeal against that order. Where the record establishes that the amount was not deposited under protest, but was paid in compliance with the impugned order (including where the sum was recovered through recovery proceedings), the payment is treated as acceptance of the order, and the subsequent appeal against it is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent
Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Deepanshu Agarwal, Ms. Misbah Dada and Mr. Shourya Tanay, Advocates i/b. ELP for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay
in the filing of the appeal is condoned. The application
is allowed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present appeal has been filed against the order
dated 11th May, 2022. Some of the noticees had filed
Appeal no.286 of 2022 against the order dated 11th
May, 2022 which was decided on 17th November, 2022
in which relief was granted to the said noticees.
3. The appellants before us did not file any appeal and,
in fact, deposited the penalty amount before the
authorities in compliance with the impugned order.
The appellants accepted the said order dated 11th May,
2022.
4. After the passing of the order dated 17th November,
2022 by this Tribunal, the appellants have filed the
present appeal on 11th April, 2023 contending that they 3
had deposited the amount under protest and, therefore,
the appeal is maintainable.
5. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the
respondent which indicates that one of the appellants,
Ms. Richa had filed an application for depositing the
penalty amount. This application is not an application
for depositing the amount under protest. No proof has
been filed by the other appellant Mr. Dilip Kumar. In
fact, the amount was withdrawn from the Bank
accounts pursuant to the recovery proceedings initiated
by the Recovery Officer.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we are satisfied that the
amount deposited by the appellant was not under
protest and was in compliance of the impugned order.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants having
accepted the order and having paid the amount in
compliance of the order now cannot file an appeal.
The appeal fails and is dismissed. 4
8. 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. 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
RAJALAKSH Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI MI HARISH HARISH NAIR 12.5.2023 NAIR Date: 2023.05.18 11:55:22 +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