Mr. Sanjay Madanlal Sanghvi & Another vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 398 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned where the appellant had earlier accepted the impugned order without challenge, and an acceptance of the order by the appellant is an untenable basis for seeking condonation of delay in later filing an appeal against it. The standard of proof in proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Board of India is preponderance of probabilities, whereas the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt, and the two sets of proceedings are independent of each other, so that a pending or contemplated criminal prosecution does not furnish a ground to condone delay in appealing a SEBI order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shop No. 2, Godrej Avanti, Near Seven Loves Chowk, Pune - 411042. .... Appellants
By Mr. Pulkit Sharma, Advocate i/b Mindspright Legal for the Appellants.
And
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. .... Respondent
By Mr. Akash Rebello, Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Mr. Nishin Shrikhande, Ms. Komal Shah, Advocates i/b Vidhii Partners for the Respondent. 2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF SEBI ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED AUGUST 31, 2020 (EX- A) PASSED BY WTM, SEBI.
With Appeal No. 399 of 2024 And Misc. Application No. 732 of 2024 And Misc. Application No. 890 of 2024
Between
1. Sanjay Madanlal Sanghvi 2. Sanjay Madanlal Sanghvi HUF
Shop No. 2, Godrej Avanti, Near Seven Loves Chowk, Pune - 411042. .... Appellants
By Mr. Pulkit Sharma, Advocate i/b Mindspright Legal for the Appellants.
And
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. .... Respondent
By Mr. Akash Rebello, Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Mr. Nishin Shrikhande, Ms. Komal Shah, Advocates i/b Vidhii Partners for the Respondent. 3
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF SEBI ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED JUNE 30, 2022 (EX-A) PASSED BY AO, SEBI.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS 8TH DAY OF MAY 2025, THIS TRIBUNAL PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Per : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral)
Appellants in these two appeals are common. Therefore, these appeals are
heard simultaneously and disposed of by this common order. There is delay of
1331 days in filing Appeal No. 398 of 2024 and 666 days delay in filing
Appeal No. 399 of 2024.
2. We have heard Mr. Pulkit Sharma, learned advocate for the appellants
and Mr. Akash Rebello, learned advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Mr. Nishin
Shrikhande, Ms. Komal Shah, learned advocate for the respondent.
3. At the outset, learned advocate for the SEBI submitted that two reasons
shown for delay filing these appeals. Firstly that the appellants had
accepted the order passed by the WTM as it was only 'warning' order.
Secondly the AO had imposed a penalty was only Rs. 25,000/-. Later,
Appellants learned about the criminal prosecution launched against them 4
and approached this Tribunal.
4. Opposing the application for condonation of delay, he submitted that
standard of proof that is required in proceedings before the SEBI is
preponderance of probabilities whereas the standard of proof as required
before the criminal court is beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
proceedings before the criminal court and SEBI are independent
proceedings.
5. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that it is no doubt true
that appellants have accepted the orders passed by both the WTM and AO
for the aforementioned reasons. The appellants' apprehension is that not
challenging the orders passed by the WTM and AO should not be construed
as appellants as having accepting the findings recorded in those orders.
Therefore, the appellants have now challenged the orders.
6. We see some force in the argument of learned advocate for the SEBI
that the prayer to condone the delay, once the appellants have accepted the
orders is untenable. He is also right in his submissions that the standard of
proof required in proceedings before the SEBI is only preponderance of
probabilities and standard of proof required in criminal court is beyond the
reasonable doubt. Hence, no ground reason to condone the delay. Further,
the criminal court will have to examine matter independently and the 5
standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt.
7. In the circumstances, applications for condonation of delay are
dismissed. Consequently, appeals stand dismissed. As prayed for by the
learned advocate for the appellants, we make it clear that the rights and
contentions of the of the parties before the criminal court are kept open.
Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member
08.05.2025 MRS Digitally signed by MRS PRAMILA PRAMILA Date: 2025.05.09 16:33:25 +05'30'
YASH
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