Sapna Dilip Bombaywala vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal24 June 2020Tarun Agarwala

CitationAppeal No. 143 of 2020

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the principle that where the same cause of action has already been adjudicated, and an earlier order on that cause of action has been set aside on appeal, a subsequent penalty order founded on the same cause of action cannot be sustained and must be quashed; the controversy is governed by the Tribunal's earlier decisions in the appellant's own appeal and in a co-ordinate matter, so that the earlier rulings are binding on the present appeal. A decision distinguished on its own facts, where its facts and circumstances differ from the present case, is not applicable and does not govern the outcome.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision : 24.06.2020Misc. Application No. 147 of 2020AndAppeal No. 143 of 2020Sapna Dilip Bombaywala439, Hasam Premji Building,2nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road,Mumbai - 400 002. ...AppellantVersusSecurities and Exchange Board of India,SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai- 400 051. ...RespondentMs. Rinku Valanju, Advocate with Ms. Hiral Shah, Advocatei/b R.V. Legal for the Appellant.Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocatei/b ELP for the Respondent.CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding OfficerDr. C.K.G. Nair, MemberJustice M. T. Joshi, Judicial MemberPer: Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)1.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties throughvideo conference. The present appeal has been filed against theorder dated 29th April 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Officer2of Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" forconvenience) imposing a penalty of Rs. 5, 00,000/- for violationof the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair TradePractices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003(PFUTP Regulations). We find that on the same cause of actionthe Whole Time Member had passed an order dated 12thFebruary 2019 debarring the appellant for a period of six yearsfrom accessing the securities market. The appellant hadpreferred an Appeal No. 219 of 2019 Sapna Bombaywala vs.SEBI which was decided on 28th January 2020 and the order ofthe Whole Time Member was set aside.

2. In our view, the controversy involved in the present appeal

is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Sapna

Bombaywala's case (Supra) dated 28th January 2020 as well as

the decision of this Tribunal in A. No. 97 of 2019 M/s Nishith

M. Shah HUF decided on 16th January 2020. The decision cited

by the respondent in Appeal No. 454 of 2019 Mrs. Kalpana

Dharmesh Chheda & Anr. Vs. SEBI decided on 25th February,

2020 is distinguishable on its own facts and is not applicable in

the instant case.

3. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the impugned order

cannot be sustained and is quashed. The appeal is allowed at the

admission stage itself without calling for a reply. In the

circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

4. 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 Presiding Officer 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.

TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=a0e08b2d80e9d23c2c2aa

AGAR 3e16780d684adad6bc9e810de2d7 b0c28efd35557c9, postalCode=211001, street=B/ A,NYAYA MARG ALLAHABAD, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd

WAL 07ff676611f4f5e7999727d404aa38 ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, o=Personal, Justice Tarun Agarwala cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.06.24 20:55:52 +05'30' Presiding Officer

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 24.06.2020 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