Securekloud Technologies Ltd. & Ors. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.918 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, on a prima facie view, holds that a penalty imposed under Section 23E of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 is not applicable in the circumstances, having regard to its earlier decision in Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. SEBI, which the order treats as governing; and that the penalty imposed for violation of the LODR Regulations appears to be on the higher side.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date: 22.11.2022 Misc. Application No.1300 of 2022 And Appeal No.918 of 2022 SecureKloud Technologies Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent Ms. Shruti Rajan, Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh and Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocates i/b. Trilegal for the Appellant. Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh, Advocates i/b. K Ashar & Co. for the Respondent. With Misc. Application No.1298 of 2022 And Appeal No.919 of 2022 Gurumurthi Jayaraman and Anr. ...Appellants Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent Ms. Shruti Rajan, Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh and Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocates i/b. Trilegal for the Appellant. 2 Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh, Advocates i/b. K Ashar & Co. for the Respondent. With Misc. Application No.1297 of 2022 And Appeal No.920 of 2022 G. Sri Vignesh ...Appellants Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent Ms. Shruti Rajan, Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh and Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocates i/b.
Trilegal for the Appellant. Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh, Advocates i/b. K Ashar & Co. for the Respondent. Order : 1. All these appeals are against a common order and are being taken up together. 2. Let a reply be filed by the respondent within three weeks. Rejoinder may be filed within three weeks thereafter. Matter would be listed for admission and for final disposal on 20th January, 2023. 3 3. Considering the facts and circumstances that has been brought on record, prima facie we find that the penalty awarded under Section 23E of the Securities Contracts Regulation Act, 1956 is not applicable in view of our decision in Suzlon Energy Ltd. vs. SEBI, Appeal no.201 of 2008 decided on 3rd May, 2021. Further, the imposition of penalty for violation of LODR Regulations appears to be on the higher side. 4. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs which will govern all the penalties within four weeks from today. If the said amount is deposited the balance amount shall not be recovered from the appellant and the other appellants during the pendency of the appeal.
The stay application as well as the urgency application is disposed of accordingly. 5. 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 4 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 RAJALAKSH Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI MI HARISH HARISH NAIR 22.11.2022 NAIR Date: 2022.11.28 13:50:02 +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