Mukesh Chauradiya vs Sebi

Mukesh Chauradiya B203, Sanmay Apartments, Opp. Prestige Towers, Judges Bunglow Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad - 380 054, Gujarat. ...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. Mukesh Chauradiya, Appellant in person and Mr. Devendra Dhanesha, Authorised Representative for the Appellant.

Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocate with Ms. Kinjal Bhatt and Mr. Hersh Chaudhary, Advocates i/b Vidhii Partners for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member

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

1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties through

video conference and perused the reply filed by the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

September 29, 2020 imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh upon the

appellant.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is

that they had filed the reply to the show cause on June 1, 2020

which was sent through e-mail which has not been considered.

Further, the matter was listed for hearing on September 22,

2020 and an e-mail was sent by the appellant on September 21,

2020 praying for an adjournment and fixing another date. It is

contended that the e-mail was duly received and the same was

not considered. The Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short)

proceeded ex-parte against the appellant and passed the

impugned order.

4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the reply filed by the respondent we find that

admittedly the reply filed by the appellant was not considered

while passing the impugned order which in our opinion is in 3

violation of the principles of natural justice. Even if the

appellant did not appear it is the onerous duty of the AO to

consider the reply and decide the matter on merits. We also find

that the request for an adjournment was not arbitrary and

therefore the AO should have considered the adjournment

request.

5. In the light of the aforesaid and without going into the

merits, we are of the opinion that there has been a violation of

the principles of natural justice and therefore on this short

ground the impugned order is quashed insofar as it relates to the

appellant. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the

AO to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of

hearing to the appellant. In the circumstances of the case, parties

shall bear their own costs.

6. 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 RAJALAKSH Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR Presiding Officer MI H NAIR Date: 2021.01.05 11:14:08 +05'30'

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 04.01.2021 msb