Miss Lucy
← All judgments

P V R Murthy vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal17 May 2024

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an appeal is allowed on the basis that the earlier remand order was founded on defective service of notice, and the same defect is not disputed, the Tribunal may, instead of remitting the matter for a fresh adjudication, dispose of the appeal by directly imposing a penalty and granting the appellant time to deposit it, in the interest of avoiding a fresh round of proceedings in a case where the earlier remand pattern has already been followed.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision : 17.05.2024Misc. Application No. 630 of 2024AndAppeal No. 328 of 2024

P V R Murthy C/402, Fortune Tower, Madhpur, Hyderabad - 82. ..... 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. Saurabh Bacchawat, Advocate with Mr. Mandar Khambete, Advocate i/b Corporate Pleaders for the Appellant.

Mr. Akash Rebello, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Harshvardhan Melanta and Mr. Yash Sutaria, Advocates i/b. K Ashar & Co. 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)

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the

consent of Advocates on both sides, the same is taken up for

final hearing.

2

2. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that

demand notice was issued to the appellant in respect of two

notices. By order dated November 22, 2022 this Tribunal has

remitted the matter to SEBI and SEBI by order dated

January 31, 2023 imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 Lakh in each

case. The appellant has complied with the said order.

He prayed that in this case, the matter may be remitted to

SEBI. He submitted that two earlier matters were remitted on

the ground that service was not properly effected on the

appellant. No notices were sought through paper publication.

This Tribunal held that service was not complete. The said

submission is not disputed by learned Advocate of SEBI. We

have considered the submissions of learned Advocate and

perused the records. In both the earlier cases, SEBI after

remand has imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh and appellant

has deposited the same amount and complied with the order

passed by the SEBI.

3. In the instant case also in our considered view quietus

can be given to the appellant by imposing a penalty of Rs. 10

lakh and granting time to the appellant that the same can be

paid in reasonable time. This would avoid the exercise of 3

remitting the matter to the SEBI and SEBI passing a fresh

order.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this appeal is

allowed and disposed of by imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh.

The appellant shall deposit the said amount within eight

weeks from today.

5. The pending miscellaneous application also stands

disposed of.

Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer

Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member

Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 17.05.2024 MADHUKAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR SHAMRAO SHAMRAO BHALBAR msb BHALBAR Date: 2024.05.22 16:26:51 +05'30'

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