Mr. Sachin Suresh Patil vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 14.01.2021

Misc. Application No. 597 of 2020 (Delay Application) And Appeal No. 26 of 2021

Mr. Sachin Suresh Patil 2/3, Gopal Bhuvan Wadi, K G Marg, Opp. Khed Galli, Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 025. ...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

Mr. Rohan Sawant, Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi and Mr. Sagar Hate, Advocates i/b S R Legal for the Appellant.

Mr. Abhishek Khare, Advocate with Ms. R. Smirithi, Advocate i/b Khare Legal Chambers for the Respondent.

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

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)

1.

The appellant has challenged the order of the Adjudicating

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

India ('SEBI') dated July 30, 2010 whereby a penalty of 2

Rs. 5 lakh was imposed for violating the provisions of

Regulations 3 and 4 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and

Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market)

Regulations, 2003 ('PFUTP Regulations' for short).

2. There is a delay of 3745 days in filing of the appeal.

Accordingly, an application for condonation of delay has been

filed. The ground urged is basically on compassionate grounds,

namely, that the appellant was a peon and was duped by his

employer who without his knowledge opened a demat account

and traded from his account. It is contended that when he

became aware of the proceedings he approached the employer

who told him that they would take care of the matter. Since

nothing happened it is alleged that he filed a complaint before

the appropriate authorities. It was also contended that

prosecution proceedings was also initiated by SEBI for non-

compliance of the order in which he was convicted. He has now

been advised to file an appeal under the SEBI Act, 1992.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

having perused the grounds taken in the application for

condonation of delay we find that no sufficient ground has been

made out for condoning this inordinate delay of more than 10

years. We find that from day one the appellant was aware of the 3

proceedings initiated by the AO. He was aware of the show

cause notice and was aware of the impugned order and was also

aware when prosecution proceeding was initiated against him

but the appellant took no steps to file an appeal. Consequently,

at this stage we do not find any sufficient reason to condone this

inordinate delay of more than 10 years. The application for

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

is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

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 RAJALAKS Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR Presiding Officer HMI H NAIR 16:22:16 +05'30' Date: 2021.01.18

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 14.01.2021 msb