Shaikh Ajgar Ali & Ors. vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 13.05.2021

Misc. Application No. 371 of 2021 (Urgency Application) And Misc. Application No. 589 of 2021 (Delay Application) And Appeal No. 327 of 2021

1.

Shaikh Ajgar Ali

2. Asraf Ali Shaikh

3. Sk. Majaffar

All residing at Dighasipur, P.O. Chakdwipa, Haldia, Purba Midnapore, West Bengal - 721 666. ...Appellants

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. Sunip Sen, Advocate with Ms. Sutapa Saha, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Karthik Narayan and Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Advocate i/b ELP for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2

1. We have taken up the appeal for admission. The urgency

application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. There is a

delay in the filing of the appeal and accordingly an application

for condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons stated in

the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The

application is allowed.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the recovery

certificate dated August 25, 2020 issued by the Recovery

Officer. From a perusal of the recovery certificate we find that

the certificate has been issued pursuant to an order of the Whole

Time Member ('WTM' for short) of the Securities and

Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) dated May 12,

2016, September 5, 2018 and also in pursuance of the order of

this Tribunal dated November 9, 2016. We also find that an

ex-parte ad-interim order was passed on March 17, 2015 which

was challenged before this Tribunal but the said appeal was

dismissed for want of prosecution by an order of this Tribunal

dated December 15, 2015.

3. We find that the present recovery certificate has been

issued in pursuance to the order of the WTM dated May 12,

2016 which has not been challenged. Consequently, in the 3

absence of any infirmity in the recovery certificate we are not

inclined to interfere in the impugned recovery certificate

especially when the order of the WTM dated May 12, 2016 has

not been challenged. The appeal fails and is dismissed with 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 Private Secretary 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.

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 13.05.2021 RAJALA Digitally by signed

KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H

msb Date: 2021.05.17 H NAIR 08:20:58 +05'30'