Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Pannalal Prajapati vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal11 February 2020Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the principle that an impugned order founded on a show cause notice never served on the party is vitiated for violation of natural justice, and on the consequence that the order cannot stand and the matter must be remitted for a fresh decision after the notice is properly served. Where the respondent concedes it has no proof of delivery of the show cause notice, the appellant's account of non-service is accepted, and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned on that basis.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision : 11.02.2020

Misc. Application No. 672 of 2019 And Appeal No. 619 of 2019

Pannalal Prajapati S/o Ukaram Prajapati, Parjapati Ka Vas, Paladar, Dhanera Road, Sanchore, Jalore, Rajasthan - 343041. ......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. Vikas Bengani, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocate i/b ELP for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2

1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

September 10, 2018. There is a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal

and accordingly, Misc. Application No. 672 of 2019 has been filed

for condoning the delay. The ground urged is that the appellant was

never served with the show cause notice or with the impugned order

and only came to know recently in August 2019.

2. Since the issue relating to the condonation of delay and to the

main appeal is common, both the application and the appeal are

being decided together.

3. A statement has been made by the learned counsel for the

respondent to the effect that they do not have any proof of delivery of

the show cause notice issued upon the appellant. In view of the

statement, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is

liable to be condoned. Further, the impugned order which proceeds

from the show cause notice which has not been served upon is

vitiated on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. In view of the aforesaid, the delay in filing the appeal is

condoned. Misc. Application is allowed. Further, the impugned

order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The appeal is allowed.

The matter is remitted to the respondent who will decide the matter 3

afresh. The appellant will appear on March 2, 2020 before the

Adjudicating Officer on which date he would be served with the

show cause notice and the Adjudicating Officer will proceed from

there onwards in accordance with law.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

Sd/-

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 11.02.2020 Prepared & Compared by 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