Pinku Kumar Das vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 2 of 2016
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned order of the Whole Time Member, which failed to deal with a submission the appellant had recorded in the order itself, and which proceeded without considering the appellant's plea that he had never attended any Board meetings, is set aside as against the appellant; where a quasi-judicial authority omits to consider a material plea and documents relevant to the appellant's position are produced for the first time on appeal, the appropriate course is to restore the matter to that authority for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law, with liberty to the appellant to place additional documents before it within a fixed period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
DATE : 09.08.2016
Appeal No. 2 of 2016
Pinku Kumar Das Village & Post Office - Palaspai, Palshpai-11, Khanakul, Hooghly, West Bengal - 711 401. ..... 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. Deepakar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Ms. Amrita Joshi, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral)
1.
The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Whole Time
Member ('WTM' for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India
('SEBI' for short) on October 19, 2015. By the said order New Land Agro
Industries Ltd. ('company' for convenience) and its directors including the
appellant have been, inter-alia, called upon to refund the money collected
by the company through the issuance of redeemable preference shares to
the investors with the interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
2. Grievance of the appellant is that, inspite of recording the
submission of the appellant in para 6 of the impugned order, the WTM has
not dealt with the said submissions in the impugned order. Apart from the 2
above, it is submitted for the first time before this Tribunal that the
appellant had erroneously stated before the WTM that the appellant had
resigned as an independent director of the company with effect from
April 1, 2013 when in fact, the appellant had resigned on September 21,
2011. In support of the above contention appellant has annexed certain
documents to the memo of appeal.
3. Since the above documents were not placed before the WTM of
SEBI and since the WTM has not considered the plea that the appellant had
never attended any Board meetings of the company, we deem it proper to
set aside the impugned order dated October 19, 2015 qua the appellant.
4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated October 19, 2015 is set
aside qua the appellant and restored to file of WTM of SEBI for passing a
fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. It would be open to the
appellant to submit additional documents before the WTM of SEBI within
two weeks from today and thereupon the WTM of SEBI shall proceed to
pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law.
5. Appeal is disposed of accordingly in the above terms with no order
as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member 09.08.2016 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