Pradeep B. Ranka And Others vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.438 of 2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an adjudicating officer refuses an adjournment sought to file a reply and to attend a personal hearing, and passes a final penalty order without granting even one adjournment, the refusal is contrary to the interests of justice and the resulting ex-parte order is liable to be set aside, even though the grounds advanced for the adjournment are not themselves justified; the proper course is to restore the matter to the adjudicating officer for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of decision: 02/03/2016
Appeal No.438 of 2014
1.
Pradeep B. Ranka 301, Panchsheel Apartments 3rd Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru - 560 009.
2. Bhanwarlal H.Ranka 301, Panchsheel Apartments 3rd Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru - 560 009.
3. Kusum B. Ranka 301, Panchsheel Apartments 3rd Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru - 560 009.
4. Sangeetha B. Ranka 301, Panchsheel Apartments 3rd Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru - 560 009.
5. Anjana P. Ranka 301, Panchsheel Apartments 3rd Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru - 560 009.
6. Arun B. Ranka 553/554, Ranka Court, Cambridge Road, Bengaluru - 560 008.
7. Rachana A. Ranka 553/554, Ranka Court, Cambridge Road, Bengaluru - 560 008.
8. Kantilal G. Bafna 192, Shanti Kunj, 6th Cross, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru - 560 009. ...Appellants -2-
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent
Mr. Chetan Kapadia a/w Mr. Sheelang Shah, Advocates i/b Israni & Co. for Appellants.
Mr. Kumar Desai a/w Mr. Tomu Francis, Advocates for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member
Per : Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)
1. Appellants are aggrieved by the ex-parte order passed by the
Adjudicating Officer ("AO" for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of
India ("SEBI" for short) dated 17th September, 2014 whereby penalty of
Rs.50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty lac) is imposed on the Appellants under section
15H(ii) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 for violating
the provisions of Regulation 11(2) read with Regulation 14 of Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers)
Regulations, 1997.
2. In para 9 of the impugned order, the AO of SEBI has acknowledged
receipt of email dated 9th September, 2014 whereby the Appellants had
sought time to file reply and also sought extension of time for the personal
hearing which was scheduled on 10th September, 2014. Rejecting the
contention of the Appellants, the impugned order is passed.
3. Although the grounds on which extension of time to file reply was
sought and although the ground on which seeking adjournment of the
personal hearing fixed on 10th September 2014 was not justified, in our -3-
opinion, in the interest of justice it would have been just and proper to grant
one adjournment before passing the final order and imposing penalty of
Rs.50 lac on the Appellants.
4. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 17th September,
2014 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO of
SEBI for passing fresh order on merits and in accordance with law.
5. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Jog Singh Member 02/03/2016 Prepared & compared by-ddg
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