Nihar Ranjan Mishra vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 16.06.2021

Misc. Application No. 163 of 2021 (Delay Application) And Misc. Application No. 164 of 2021 (Stay Application) And Appeal No. 385 of 2021

Nihar Ranjan Mishra 142, Jasmanium 1, Vatika City, Sector 49, Gurgaon 122 018. ..... Appellant

Versus

Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent

Mrs. Rathina Maravarman, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member 2

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)

1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order passed by

the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') of

Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as

'SEBI') dated March 20, 2019. There is a delay of 661 days in the

filing of the appeal and accordingly an application for condonation of

delay has been filed.

2. The ground urged is, that the appellant had resigned from the

Company and that he was working abroad since March 2015 to

February 2020. He only came to know about the impugned order

when he returned to India and found that his account was frozen in

February 2021.

3. In view of the aforesaid, we called upon the respondent to

show as to whether he was adequately served with the summons or

not. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that service

was made through the company during the period when the appellant

was aboard as can be seen from the endorsement made in the

passport. Considering the fact that the appellant contends that he had 3

resigned prior to service of the summons at the company's address,

we are of the opinion that in the instant case, service was inadequate

and that the appellant was not served with the show cause notice.

4. In view of the aforesaid, all the proceedings initiated pursuant

to the show cause notice is against the principles of natural justice.

Since adequate service of summons was not made upon the

appellant, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed in

so far as it relates to the appellant. The attachment proceedings

pursuant to the said order are also set aside. The matter is remitted to

the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

5. In this regard, we direct the appellant to appear before the AO

on July 1, 2021 on which date the AO will serve a show cause notice

upon the appellant and from there onwards the matter will proceed in

accordance with law. The appellant will supply e-mail ID, telephone

numbers and current address to the AO within 10 days from today so

that adequate notice shall be sent by the AO and if necessary the

proceedings can be conducted through video conference. In the

circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. 4

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 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 16.06.2021 RAJALA Digitally by signed

KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H

PTM Date: 2021.06.18 H NAIR 15:00:48 +05'30'