P V R Murthy vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 328 of 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
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