Raj Kumar Sharma vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 96 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellant's case is squarely covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in Mrs. Saroj Devi Kothari vs. SEBI, which arose from a common order, and a party in the same position is therefore entitled to similar relief; the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Officer is accordingly reduced to match that decision.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 15.03.2021
Misc. Application No. 141 of 2021 (Delay Application) And Appeal No. 96 of 2021
Raj Kumar Sharma 32, Sir Hari Ramgoenka Street, Kolkata - West Bengal - 700 007. ..... 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. Himanshu Agarwal, Advocate i/b M/s. Bellator Legal Services LLP for the Appellant. Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocate with Ms. Kinjal Bhatt, Mr. Hersh Choudhary, Advocates i/b Vidhii Partners 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 July
31, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to
as 'AO') of Securities & Exchange Board of India (hereinafter
referred to as 'SEBI') imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs.
2. There is a delay in the filing of the appeal and accordingly an
application for condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons
stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is
allowed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that
the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
decision of this Tribunal dated December 24, 2020 passed in Appeal
No. 516 of 2020 Mrs. Saroj Devi Kothari vs. SEBI and other
connected appeals. Since the said judgment arises from a common
order, the appellant is also entitled for a similar relief.
4. The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order is
confirmed and the penalty is however reduced from Rs. 5 lac to
Rs. 1 lac which shall be paid by the appellant within four weeks from
today. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own
costs.
3
5. The present matter was heard through video conference due to
Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage, it is not possible to sign a copy of
this order nor a certified copy of this order could be issued by the
Registry. In these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed
by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned
parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order.
Parties will act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax
and/or email.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Dr. C. K. G Nair Member
Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member RAJALA Digitally signed 15.03.2021 by
KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H
PTM Date: 2021.03.17 H NAIR 12:04:24 +05'30'
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