Rajeev Agrawal & Anr. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.465 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal is filed more than 1600 days after the impugned order and no explanation is offered for the delay in the period before the COVID-19 lockdown took effect, the Supreme Court's suo moto extensions of limitation during the pandemic do not supply a plausible reason to condone the delay, and the delay is not condoned. Where delay in filing an appeal has been condoned in a connected matter arising from the same impugned order on the same facts, the same reasons for condonation apply and the delay in the present appeal is condoned on that basis. Where a penalty is imposed jointly and severally on several noticees and a co-noticee's penalty has been reduced in appeal on the same facts, a similarly placed appellant is entitled to equal relief, and the penalty against him is reduced accordingly while the violation itself stands upheld.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
E-67, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. ...Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhawan, Plot No.C4-A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400051. ...Respondent
Mr. Mihir Mody, Advocate with Mr. Arnav Misra, Advocate i/b. K Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
The appellant has challenged the order of the Whole
Time Member (hereinafter referred to as 'WTM') as
well as the order of the Adjudicating Officer
(hereinafter referred to as 'AO') dated 2nd January,
2019 and 29th November, 2019 respectively. There is a
delay of more than 1600 days in the filing of the
appeal.
3
2. Insofar as the order of the WTM is concerned, the
ground urged is that he is a senior citizen and is based
in Delhi and on account of the Covid Pandemic he
could not file the appeal within the stipulated period
and in view of the order of the Supreme Court in suo
moto writ petition (civil) no(s).3/2020 dated 23rd
March, 2020, 8th March, 2021, 27th April, 2021 and
10th January, 2022 the delay may be condoned.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we
are of the opinion that there is an undue delay in the
filing of the appeal. The impugned order is dated 2nd
January, 2019 and the lock down kicked in only in
March, 2020. No explanation has been filed as to why
the appeal could not be filed before the lockdown.
Thus, there is no plausible reason to condone this
inordinate delay. The application for condonation of
delay is rejected, as a result of which the impugned
order dated 2nd January, 2019 of the WTM is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
4
4. Insofar as the AO's order dated 29th November,
2019 is concerned, in similar facts against the same
impugned order we had condoned the delay in the
appeal of Mr. Rajendran Shivashankaran vs. SEBI in
Appeal no.113 of 2023 dated 2nd January, 2023. For
the reasons stated therein the delay in the filing of the
appeal is condoned. The application is allowed.
5. We find that in the instant case, a penalty of Rs.1
crore has to be paid jointly and severally by the
appellant and other noticees. One such noticee was
Mr. Rajendran Shivashankaran who filed Appeal
no.113 of 2023 and this Tribunal by an order dated 2nd
January, 2023 reduced the penalty to Rs.10 lakhs upon
the said noticee.
6. We are of the view that the appellant is also entitled
for a similar relief. Accordingly, while upholding the
violation the penalty against the appellant is reduced to
Rs.10 lakhs which shall be payable by him within four
weeks from today. The appeal is partly allowed. 5
7. 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. Certified copy of this order is also
available from the Registry on payment of usual
charges.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member RAJALAKS Digitally signed by HMI RAJALAKSHMI
19.5.2023 HARISH HARISH NAIR NAIR Date: 2023.05.25 15:19:43 +05'30' RHN
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