Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Mr. K. Murugavel vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal18 January 2023Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The principle that an adjudicating order imposing a monetary penalty cannot stand where the affected party was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, the notice having been returned undelivered, and that where the party's continued residence at the address is shown, the matter must be remitted to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after affording a hearing in accordance with law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision: 18.1.2023Misc. Application No.1705 of 2022AndAppeal No.61 of 2023

Mr. K. Murugavel 6, Patel Street, Ananda Nagar, Tambaram East, Chennai-600059. ...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. Amrita Jain, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sarangarajan, Advocate i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member

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

1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order

dated 31st May, 2022 whereby a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs

has been imposed upon the appellant. There is a delay

in the filing of the appeal. For the reasons stated in the

application, the delay is condoned. The application is

allowed.

2. We find that no opportunity of hearing was

provided to the appellant. As per the impugned order

notice returned undelivered with a remark 'left'

without instructions.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the

appellant has not left the residential premises and is

still residing at the same address. In view of the

aforesaid, we are of the confirmed opinion that a

proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the

appellant. We therefore set aside the impugned order

insofar as the appellant is concerned. The appeal is

allowed. The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating

Officer to decide the matter afresh in accordance with 3

law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

appellant.

4. In this regard, the appellant shall appear before the

Adjudicating Officer on 1st February, 2023 on which

date the matter will be proceed in accordance with law.

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. 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

RAJALAK Digitally signed by SHMI RAJALAKSHMI HARISH HARISH NAIR 18.1.2023 NAIR Date: 2023.01.20 10:11:45 +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