Sagar Dhanvant Jajal & Anr. vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal19 August 2020Tarun Agarwala

CitationAppeal No.194 of 2020

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an adjudicating officer's penalty order rests on the same charge already decided in the appellant's own favour by the Tribunal in an earlier appeal, and the controversy is squarely covered by that earlier decision, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision: 19.8.2020Appeal No.194 of 20201.Sagar Dhanvant Jajal2. Chandrika Dhanvant JajalC/301, Parshva Nagar,Building No.2, Jain Mandir Road,Bhayandar (West), Thane - 401101. ... AppellantsVersusSecurities & Exchange Board of IndiaSEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A,G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,Bandra (E), Mumbai - 51. ... RespondentMr. Sagar Dhanvant Jajal, Appellant-in-person.Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b. The Law Point for theRespondent.CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding OfficerDr. C.K.G. Nair, MemberJustice M.T. Joshi, Judicial MemberPer : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)1. We have heard Shri Sagar Dhanvant Jajal theAppellant in person and Shri Anubhav Ghosh,learned counsel for the Respondent through videoconference.22. The present appeal has been filed agains the order ofthe Adjudicating Officer dated 31st July, 2020imposing a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs for violatingRegulations 3 and 4 of Securities and ExchangeBoard of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and UnfairTrade Practices Relating to Securities Market)Regulations, 2003.3. We find that on the same charge the Whole TimeMember had passed an order dated 23rd January, 2019 againstwhich the Appellant filed Appeal No.104 of 2019 which wasdecided along with other connected appeals on 21st February,2020 whereby the order of the Whole Time Member was setaside and the appeal of the Appellant was allowed. We are ofthe opinion that the controversy involved in the presentappeal is squarely covered by our decision dated 21stFebruary, 2020 passed in the appeal of the Appellant himselfin Appeal No.104 of 2019 decided on 21st February, 2020.4. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannotbe sustained and is quashed. The appeal is allowed at thestage of admission itself without calling for a reply. In thecircumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.35. The present matter was heard through video conferencedue to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible tosign a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this ordercould be issued by the registry. In these circumstances, thisorder will be digitally signed by the Presiding Officer onbehalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed toact on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will acton production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax and/oremail.

TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac2a Justice Tarun Agarwala AGARWAL b7954d509c85ed6e0f7c41, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e799972 7d404aa38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Presiding Officer Date: 2020.08.19 18:40:29 +05'30'

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member

19.8.2020 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