Rakesh Sharma vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.382 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the appellant disputes service of the notice and the impugned order was passed ex parte against him, the impugned order may be set aside as against that appellant, and the matter remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision on merits after affording him an opportunity of hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 6.3.2018
Appeal No.382 of 2017
Rakesh Sharma House No.25, Sarathi Path Housing Colony, Hengrabari Road, Guwahati - 781 006. ..... Appellant
Versus
1.
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, "G" Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051.
2. Ambitious Diversified Projects Management Ltd. 19B, 1st Floor, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Kolkata - 700017.
3. Shri Rajkumar Yadav Mata Deen Ka Pura, Ater Road, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh-477001.
4. Shri Pradeep Ojha Ojah Nagar, Ater Road, Bhind- 477001.
5. Shri Satyendra Singh Bhadouria 23, Ater Road, Balaji Nagar, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh - 477001. ... Respondents
Mr. D. Banerji, Advocate with Ms. Sapana Rachu for the Appellant.
Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranav N. Jain and Mr. Chirag Bhavsar, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent no.1. None for Respondent nos.2 to 5.
CORAM : Justice J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral) 2
1. This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the Whole Time
Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) on
13th November, 2017.
2. Grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order is passed
without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and even the
interim order was not served upon him. It is further contented that since the
appellant was allegedly shown as a director of Ambitious Diversified
Projects Management Limited only for one day, the WTM of SEBI is not
justified in passing the impugned order against the appellant.
3. As there is dispute regarding service of the notice and the
impugned order is also an ex-parte order qua the appellant, in the facts of
the present case in our opinion, it would be just and proper to quash and set
aside the impugned order qua the appellant and restore the matter for fresh
decision on merits and in accordance with law.
4. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated
13th November, 2017 qua the appellant and direct the WTM of SEBI to pass
fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to
the appellant as expeditiously as possible.
5. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member
6.3.2018 Prepared and compared by 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