Shubham Karnani Huf vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 54 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellant's controversy is squarely covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in Global Earth Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. SEBI, and the Adjudicating Officer's findings, being consistent with that decision, cannot be disturbed on the same reasoning. A remand to permit the filing of a further or fuller reply is not warranted where the appellant was afforded ample opportunity to reply to the proceedings and failed to do so.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision : 07.02.2022 Misc. Application No. 54 of 2022 And Appeal No. 54 of 2022 Shubham Karnani HUF GC 128, Sector - 3, Saltlake City, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700 102. ..... 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. Jai Anant Dehadrai, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Karthik Narayan, Mr. Harshvardhan Nankani, Mr. Shourya Tanay and Mr. Anshu Mehta, Advocates i/b ELP for the Respondent (SEBI). CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the controversy involved in the present appeal is 2 squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Global Earth Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI, Appeal No. 212 of 2020 decided on September 14, 2020. 2. An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that even though an opportunity was given to the appellant to file a reply, the same was inadequate and therefore on this ground it was urged that the matter may be remanded to enable the appellant to file a proper reply.
We are not impressed by this argument for the simple reason that we find that ample opportunity was given but the appellant failed to file a reply. We also find that the findings given by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Global Earth Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The miscellaneous application is also disposed of. 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 3 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 RAJALA Digitally signed Judicial Member by 07.02.2022 KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H Date: 2022.02.09 msb H NAIR 09:45:33 +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