Narendra Kripashankar Mishra vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 128 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal on the reasons stated in the condonation application, which it found sufficient. Where the controversy in an appeal is squarely covered by an earlier decision of the Tribunal on the same question, the Tribunal may follow that decision, and the appeal is to be disposed of accordingly.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Narendra Kripashankar Mishra B/110, Sankalp Niketan, 1st Floor, 2nd Carpenter Street, Dockyard Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai - 400 010. ...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. Harsh Kesharia, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate with Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocate i/b The Law Point 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 dated July 31, 2020
passed by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) of the 2
Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short)
imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh. There is a delay in the filing of
the appeal and accordingly an application for condonation of the
delay has been filed. For the reasons stated in the application,
the delay is condoned. The application is allowed.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely
covered by a decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 527 of
2020, Akshata Majgaonkar vs. Securities and Exchange
Board of India and other connected appeals which was
decided on December 23, 2020.
3. In view of the aforesaid, we affirm the order of the AO
and reduce the penalty from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh which shall
be paid by the appellant within four weeks from today.
The appeal is partly allowed.
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 3
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
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 12.03.2021 RAJALA Digitally signed by
KSHMI H RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR Date: 2021.03.15
msb NAIR 11:43:04 +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