Mr. Priyansh Patodi vs Sebi

Mr. Priyansh Patodi Sole Proprietor - MMF Solutions 14/1, Old Palasia, 6th Floor, 601, Rukmani Plaza, A B Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh - 452 001. ...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. Shikha Bhura, Advocate i/b Tap Legal for the Appellant.

Mr. Abhiraj Arora, 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)

1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

We find that the Whole Time Member ('WTM' for short) of the

Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) had 2

passed an order dated February 15, 2018 directing the appellant

to refund the sum of Rs. 64,26,952/- and any other amount

received from the clients in respect of unregistered Investment

Advisory Services, unregistered Research Analyst Services and

unregistered Portfolio Manager Services made by the appellant.

Against this order, the appellant preferred Appeal No. 97 of

2018 in which this Tribunal while disposing of the matter by

order dated April 24, 2018 recorded the contention of the

counsel for the appellant that the appellant would seek time to

refund the balance amount payable to the clients. Based on this

statement, this Tribunal directed the appellant to file a

representation before the WTM setting out in detail the amounts

already paid to the clients and the mode and manner in which

the appellant would refund the balance amount to the clients.

2. It transpires that no representation was made in terms of

the directions given by this Tribunal. The WTM after granting

ample opportunity also gave a personal hearing and tried to

reconcile the amounts but at the end of the day found that

original amount as directed by the WTM in its earlier order

dated August 8, 2019 was payable. The WTM accordingly

rejected the representation.

3

3. The appellant has now filed the present appeal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant we do

not find any manifest error in the order of the Tribunal.

No document has been filed to show that any kind of

representation was filed before the WTM setting out in detail as

to the manner and mode of refunding the balance amount to the

clients. Much water has flown since the passing of the

impugned order by the WTM. Till date, no amount whatsoever

has been paid. We accordingly do not find any reason to

interfere in the order passed by the WTM. We also find that the

challenge on the quantum adjudicated by the WTM could not be

reagitated again by the appellant. The appeal fails and is

dismissed in limini.

5. 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 4

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: 2021.02.15 NAIR 10:44:02 +05'30'

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 12.02.2021 msb