Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Nimain Charan Biswal vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal14 July 2016J.P. Devadhar

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an adjudicating order imposes restraints on a party that go beyond the scope of the show cause notice and any interim order against that party, the order cannot be sustained as against that party, and the appropriate course is to quash it and remit the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision : 14.07.2016

Appeal No. 204 of 2016 Nimain Charan Biswal C-301/302, Lake Lucerne, Phase-3, Lake Homes, Powai, Mumbai - 400 076. ...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

Dr. Nimain Charan Biswal, Appellant in person.

Mr. Aditya Chitale, Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per : J.P. Devadhar (Oral)

1.

This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the Whole Time

Member ('WTM' for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India

('SEBI' for short) on June 2, 2016. By that order several entities including

the appellant have been restrained from accessing the securities market for a

period of 4 years from the date specified therein. It is not in dispute that in

so far as appellant is concerned the decision of the WTM of SEBI travels

beyond the Show Cause Notice ('SCN' for short) and beyond the interim

order passed against the appellant.

2. Where the impugned order goes beyond the SCN then, that order

cannot be sustained and in such a case, the proper course is to set aside the

said order and restore the matter to the file of WTM of SEBI for passing

fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. 2

3. Accordingly, the impugned order dated June 2, 2016 is quashed qua

the appellant and restored to the file of WTM of SEBI for fresh decision on

merits and in accordance with law.

4. The WTM of SEBI is directed to hear the appellant and pass order

thereon as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two

months from today.

5. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Jog Singh Member

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

14.07.2016 Prepared and compared by:

msb

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