Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ms. Usha Murugavel vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal11 January 2023Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where summonses and notices sent to a party's address are returned undelivered, with an endorsement that the addressee has left, service by affixation at that same address is not proper service in law. An adjudicating order passed without service of the show cause notice, or without any opportunity of hearing to the party, is liable to be set aside on that ground alone and the matter remitted for a fresh decision after due service.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision : 11.01.2023

Appeal No. 1012 of 2022

Ms. Usha Murugavel Proprietor of Aswin Logistic Ventures 6, Patel Street, Ananda Nagar, Tambaram East, Chennai - 600 059. .....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 i/b Singhania & Co. LLP for the Appellant.

Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Ms. Karishma Molta and Mr. Aditya Sarangarajan, Advocates 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)

1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The

appellant has challenged the order dated May 31, 2022 passed

by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) of the Securities

and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short). The ground 2

urged is, that it is an ex parte order. The show cause notice or

supplementary show cause notice or date of hearing was

never served upon the appellant.

2. In the reply filed by the respondent, we find that the

summons sent at the address of the appellant came back

undelivered. In one of the notices that was sent subsequently

there was an endorsement that the addressee had left. In view

of this evidence, service by way of affixation at the same

address is not proper service in the eyes of law.

3. Consequently, we are of the affirmed view that

appellant was not served nor any opportunity was provided to

the appellant. On this short ground, the impugned order is set

aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the AO

to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after serving the

show cause notice. In this regard the appellant shall appear

before the AO on January 23, 2023 on which date the show

cause notice would be served and the matter will proceed

from there onwards.

4. 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. 3

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

11.01.2023 MADHUKAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR SHAMRAO SHAMRAO BHALBAR msb BHALBAR Date: 2023.01.12 14:54:27 +05'30'

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