Prasad Tandel vs Sebi

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 09/05/2017

Misc. Application No.107 of 2016 And Appeal No.148 of 2016

Prasad Tandel Room No.7 (Transit Camp), Sankalp Siddhi Co-op. Housing Society, Ground Floor, Sasmira Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400 030. ... Applicant/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

WITH Misc. Application No.136 of 2016 And Misc. Application No.137 of 2016 And Appeal No.195 of 2016

Prasad Tandel Room No.7 (Transit Camp), Sankalp Siddhi Co-op. Housing Society, Ground Floor, Sasmira Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400 030. ... Applicant/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. Sagar Seth a/w Ms. Rinku Valanju, Advocates for the Applicant/Appellant.

Mr. Aditya Chitale a/w Mr. Ropadaksha Basu and Mr. Siddha Parekh, Advocates for the Respondent 2

CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per : Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member (Oral)

1.

These two appeals are preferred by the appellants who are aggrieved

by the impugned orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer ("AO" for short)

of Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for short) on 29th February,

2012 and 22nd March, 2012, respectively. By the said orders, penalty of Rs.5

lac is imposed against the respective appellant for violation of various

provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of

Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 whilst dealing in

the securities of Prraneta Industries Ltd. and G-Tech Info Training Limited,

respectively. Misc. Application No.107 of 2016 was filed seeking condonation

of delay of 1459 days in filing Appeal No.148 of 2016 and Misc. Application

No.136 of 2016 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 1475 days in filing

Appeal No.195 of 2016. Given inordinate delays in filing these appeals, both

parties were heard on the Misc. Applications seeking condonation of delays.

Misc. Application No.137 of 2016 in Appeal No.195 of 2016 is also filed

seeking stay on attachment of bank account of the appellant. Since issues in

both the appeals are common, both appeals are heard together. Counsel for

the parties state that decision in one appeal would equally apply to the other

appeal.

2. On taking up the Misc. Application No.107 of 2016 in Appeal No.148 of

2016, Mr. Sagar Seth, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded

that the appellant was not in receipt of the show-cause notice, notices for

personal hearing, etc. and as such the impugned order is an ex-parte order

and prayed for an opportunity for presenting the full facts before the 3

Respondent-SEBI. However, he admitted that the impugned order dated 29th

February, 2012 was received by the appellant on or about 5th March, 2012.

Due to financial constraints they could not file appeal and a serious thinking

on filing of appeal was done after receiving summons in November, 2014

from the Sessions Court, Mumbai on the criminal proceedings initiated by

SEBI.

3. Mr. Aditya Chitale, learned Counsel for the Respondent-SEBI stated

that no substantive reason has been brought out by the appellant while

seeking condonation of delay of more than four years. On the other hand, it

is only after the initiation of criminal proceedings that the appellant has

moved this Tribunal with an ulterior motive to stymie the process of law.

4. We find no merit in the argument of the appellant. It is an admitted

fact that the impugned order dated 29th February, 2012 was in fact received by

the appellant in the first week of March, 2012 itself. The present appeal has

been filed on 11th April, 2016 i.e. after 49 months (1459 days later). Even after

the criminal proceedings were initiated in November, 2014, the appellant took

15 more months to file this appeal.

5. Appellant relied on two judgments of this Tribunal in the matter of

Kaushik Roy vs. SEBI & Ors. (Appeal No.290 of 2016 decided on 9/1/2017)

and Bhavana Bipin Shah & Ors. vs. SEBI (Appeal No.197 of 2016 decided on

24/10/2016). In the case of Bhavan Bipin Shah, delays were condoned on the

appellants agreeing to deposit the entire amount of penalty and the matter

was remanded back to SEBI for fresh orders as per law. In the case of

Kaushik Roy, since the appellant was not given an opportunity of being

heard, the order was set aside directing SEBI to hear the matter afresh. 4

6. Both the above decisions are distinguishable on facts, because, the

delay in those cases were not as huge as in the present case. Moreover, delay

condoned in the facts of those cannot be a ground to hold that in every case

the delay must be condoned as has been done in the above two cases. In the

facts of present case, we are satisfied that the gross delay of more than 4 years

does not deserve to be condoned. Accordingly, Misc. Application No.107 of

2016 in Appeal No.148 of 2016 is dismissed. For the same reason, Misc.

Application No.136 of 2016 in Appeal No.195 of 2016 is also dismissed.

7. In view of the dismissal of the aforesaid Misc. Applications, both the

appeals do not survive. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.

8. In the result, all the Misc. Applications are dismissed. Consequently,

both the appeals are dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Jog Singh Member

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 09/05/2017 prepared & compared by-dg