Shri T. Prabhu vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 1019 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal upheld the direction of the Whole Time Member requiring refund of fees collected for investment advisory services rendered without registration under the Investment Advisory Regulations, holding that no error lay in that direction where the appellant had failed to file any reply to the show-cause notice. The Tribunal also held that the controversy was squarely covered by its earlier decision in Eprofitzone Fincap Consultant Private Limited & Ors. vs. SEBI, which the Tribunal followed in dismissing the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 03.01.2023
Appeal No. 1019 of 2022
Shri T. Prabhu 3/706, Sahul Hameed Street, Near Temple, Paramakudi- 623 707 Ramanathapuram District, Tamilnadu State. ...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. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Ms. Samreen Fatima and Mr. Sumit Yadav, Advocates i/b The Law Point for Respondent (SEBI).
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
We have perused the memorandum of appeal and the
impugned order. We find that inspite of receipt of the notice the
appellant did not file any reply before the Whole Time Member
("WTM" for convenience) of the Securities and Exchange
Board of India ("SEBI" for convenience). 2
2. From a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the
appellant was carrying out investment advisory services without
being registered under the Investment Advisory Regulations.
The WTM accordingly directed the appellant to refund the
amount taken towards such services within three months. We
do not find any error. We also find that the controversy
involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by a decision
of this Tribunal in Eprofitzone Fincap Consultant Private
Limited & Ors. vs. SEBI Appeal No. 490 of 2022 decided on
25.08.2022.
3. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any manifest
error in the impugned order. The appeal fails and is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
4. 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. Certified copy of
this order is also available from the Registry on payment of
usual charges.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup PRERNA Digitally signed Technical Member 03.01.2023 by PRERNA MANISH MANISH KHARE PK Date: 2023.01.09 KHARE 16:13:24 +05'30'
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