Nitin Kumar Didwania vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 41 of 2016
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A party against whom an order has been passed by SEBI is entitled to seek inspection of the documents referred to in its communications, and SEBI, on refusing such a request, must give reasons for the refusal; a bare communication stating that the documents relied upon in the interim order have already been supplied, without explaining why the requested inspection is not justified, does not satisfy that obligation and cannot stand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 02.05.2016
Appeal No. 41 of 2016
Nitin Kumar Didwania 172, Kshitij, 47, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai - 400 036. ...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. Jaikishan Lakhwani, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat and Mr. Harekrishna Ashar, Advocates i/b K Ashar & Co. 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.
Grievance of the appellant is that by letter dated December 14, 2015
the appellant had called upon Securities and Exchange Board of India
('SEBI' for short) to give inspection of various documents referred to in the
said letter. SEBI by its communication dated February 18, 2016 has rejected
the request for inspection by merely recording that all the documents relied
upon by SEBI while passing the interim order have been already provided to
the appellant hence application has been rejected.
2. The communication of SEBI dated February 18, 2016 does not set
out reasons as to how the appellant is not justified in seeking inspection of
the documents referred to in the communication dated December 14, 2015. 2
3. In these circumstances, SEBI is directed either to give inspection of
the documents referred to in the letter dated December 14, 2015 or give
reasons as to why the inspection of documents cannot be given, within a
period of 8 weeks from today.
4. 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
02.05.2016 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