Mr. Divyesh Harish Surana vs Sebi

Mr. Divyesh Harish Surana Through Power of Attorney Holder (Mr. Harish Mohanlal Surana) Room No. 4, 2nd Floor, Somji Building, Dr. M.G. Mahimtura Marg, Kumbharwada, Mumbai - 400 004. ...Appellant

Versus

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

Ms. Rinku Valanju, Advocate with Mr. Pratham Masurekar and Mr. Aditya Shah, Advocates i/b R V Legal for the Appellant.

Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Advocate i/b ELP for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2

1.

Proceedings against the appellant was taken by the

Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) for

violation of the SEBI laws. The Whole Time Member ('WTM'

for short) passed an order in 2017 debarring the appellant from

accessing the securities market for a period of three years. The

Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) initiated proceedings

which culminated in passing the impugned order dated January

28, 2019 imposing a penalty of Rs. 15 lakh. The appellant has

filed the present appeal against this order which is accompanied

by an application for condonation of delay.

2. There is a delay of 364 days in the filing of the appeal.

The ground urged is, that the appellant is living in United States

(US) on H1B1 Visa and only came to know about the impugned

order when he came back to India on January 10, 2020 and

thereafter he authorized his father to file the present appeal.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

having perused the records we are not satisfied with the cause

shown by the appellant for condoning this inordinate delay. We

find that soon after the passing of the impugned order the father

of the appellant wrote letters on March 4, 2019 and again on 3

June 10, 2019 requesting the authority to waive the penalty. The

contention of the appellant that his father never informed the

appellant about the impugned order cannot be believed. In the

light of the aforesaid, we do not find any sufficient cause made

out for condoning this inordinate delay. The Misc. Application

for condonation of the delay is rejected, as a result of which, the

appeal as also application for stay is also dismissed.

4. 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 RAJALAKS Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI H HMI H NAIR Date: 2021.02.09 NAIR 16:56:04 +05'30'

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 09.02.2021 msb