Pearls Infrastructure Projects Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 301 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order dated 31 August 2017 is quashed because it is not a reasoned order, and a Recovery Officer's order that gives no reasons cannot stand; the matter is therefore restored to the Recovery Officer for a fresh decision after hearing the appellant.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 09.11.2017
Misc. Application No. 278 of 2017 And Appeal No. 301 of 2017
Pearls Infrastructure Projects Ltd. 2nd Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi ...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 Bachhatwat, Advocate i/b Mr. Sukrut Mhatre, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody and Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, 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: Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)
1.
Appellant is aggrieved by the Recovery Certificates issued on
September 07, 2016 and also the order dated August 31, 2017 passed by
the Recovery Officer ("RO" for short) of the Securities and Exchange
Board of India ("SEBI" for short).
2
2. In view of the fact that the order dated August 31, 2017 is not a
reasoned order, counsel for SEBI on instruction states that the RO of
SEBI would reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
3. Accordingly, order dated August 31, 2017 is quashed and set aside
and the matter is restored to the file of RO for fresh decision on merits
within a period of two weeks from today. It is made clear that in the
meantime the attachment levied on September 07, 2016 shall continue to
be in force.
4. As regards the plea raised by the appellant for operating bank
accounts to discharge the statutory dues, we permit the appellant to make
a representation to the RO and direct to RO to consider that
representation and pass appropriate orders as deemed fit as expeditiously
as possible.
5. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Misc. Application No. 278
of 2017 does not survive and the same is also disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Jog Singh Member
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 09.11.2017 Prepared & Compared By: PK
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