Right Finstock Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 258 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on two points, each stated as a principle of its own: The delay of 888 days in filing the appeal is condoned where the peculiar facts of the case justify it, the application giving the reasons for the delay. Where a personal hearing has been offered but not availed, and the adjudicating order is passed after an inordinate delay from that hearing, the Tribunal will set aside the order and direct the adjudicating officer to pass a fresh order on merits after affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 30.10.2017
Misc. Application No. 251 of 2017 And Appeal No. 258 of 2017
Right Finstock Pvt. Ltd. C/161, Kamdhenu Complex, Panjarpole Ambavadi, Ahemdabad- 380 015, Gujarat. ...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. Prakash Shah, Advocate with Mr. Robin Shah, Advocate i/b Mr. Durgesh Jaiswal and Mr. Ajay Dubey, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Mr. Santanu Mitra and Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocates i/b Desai & Diwanji for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per: Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)
Misc. Application No. 251 of 2017
By this Miscellaneous Application, applicant seeks condonation of
888 days delay in filing the appeal. Although the delay is enormous, in
the peculiar facts of present case, for the reasons stated in the application,
we condone the delay.
Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly. 2
Appeal No. 258 of 2017
1.
This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the
Adjudicating Officer ("AO" for short) of Securities and Exchange Board
of India ("SEBI" for short) on February 09, 2015.
2. In the present case, admittedly personal hearing was offered to the
appellant on April 20, 2010 whereas, the impugned order is passed
belatedly on February 09, 2015. Moreover, admittedly, till date no action
is taken by SEBI to recover the penalty imposed under the impugned
order.
3. As the appellant had failed to avail the opportunity of hearing
offered on April 20, 2010 and as there is inordinate delay in passing the
impugned order, in the peculiar facts of present case, we set aside the
impugned order and direct the AO of SEBI to pass fresh order on merits
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
4. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 30.10.2017 Prepared & Compared By: PK
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