Nilesh Krushna Palande vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 14.05.2024

Misc. Application No. 354 of 2024 And Misc. Application No. 355 of 2024 And Misc. Application No. 356 of 2024 And Appeal No. 288 of 2024 Nilesh Krushna Palande B-201, Dhanyalaxmi Apt., Jivdani Road, Virar East, Vasai, Palghar - 401305. ..... 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. Tejas Madhavi, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan, Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member

Per : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2

There is a delay of 2302 days in the filing this appeal.

Urgency application has worked for itself and it is accordingly

disposed of. Exemption application is allowed.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 30,

2017 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India

(hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') imposing a penalty of

Rs. 2,00,000/- for violation of Regulation 29(1), 29(2) of the

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of

Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011.

3. A show cause notice was sent to the appellant's premises

situated in Boriwali whereas appellant resides in Virar, Palghar. The

impugned order has been passed on the premises that the notice has

been served.

4. The principal contention urged by Shri Tejas Madhavi, learned

counsel for the appellant is that appellant was not served with the

notice. Therefore, appellant had no knowledge of proceedings nor of

the impugned order. Appellant learnt about the impugned order

when recovery proceedings were initiated. Hence, there has been

delay in approaching this Tribunal. 3

5. Though Shri Manish Chhangani, learned counsel for the SEBI

sought to oppose this appeal, the aspect with regard to non-service of

notice was not seriously contested.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel

for the appellant and perused the record. Admittedly, address of the

appellant is Virar, Palghar. Notice has not been sent to that address.

No material is placed on record by the respondent to show that

appellant was served. Therefore, in our view, the impugned order

has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In the

facts of this case, the application for condonation of delay merits

consideration. Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. Impugned order dated October 30, 2017 is set aside. Matter

is remitted to the SEBI for fresh consideration in accordance

with law with a direction to pass fresh order after hearing the

appellant in an outer limit of three months from the date of

appearance of appellant before SEBI.

4 4. Appellant shall appear before the SEBI on June 18, 2024

without notice.

Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer

Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member

Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 14.05.2024 PRAMILA TANAJI Digitally signed by PRAMILA TANAJI MISAL Date: 2024.05.15 MISAL PTM 13:55:54 +05'30'