Nilesh Palande vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 287 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the record contains no material showing that a show cause notice was served at the address of the party against whom an adverse order is made, and the notice was not sent to the party's address as known to the authority, an order passed on the premise of such service is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
There is a delay of 2209 days in the filing of the 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 January 31,
2018 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India
(hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') imposing a penalty of
Rs. 1,50,000/- for violation of Section 2(i) of the Securities Contracts
(Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'SCRA') read with
Sections 13, 16 and 18 of the SCRA.
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 January 31, 2018 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 13:55:15
MISAL +05'30'
PTM
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