Shubhi Bansal vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 79 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellant, having been duly served with the show cause notice and the hearing notice and having chosen not to file a reply or contest the proceedings, cannot complain of the adjudicating officer's order on the ground of lack of opportunity; the consequences of non-participation in proceedings after proper service rest on the party who chose not to participate. Where the controversy in an appeal is squarely covered by an earlier decision of the Tribunal, the appeal is to be dismissed on the strength of that decision.
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 : 22.02.2022 Misc. Application No. 81 of 2022 (Delay Application) And Misc. Application No. 80 of 2022 (Exemption Application) And Misc. Application No. 135 of 2022 (Stay Application) And Appeal No. 79 of 2022 Shubhi Bansal 01 Bye Pass Road , Prakash Enclave, Dayal Bagh, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, 282005. ....Appellant Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent Mr. Ram Awatar Dhoot, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Karthik Narayan, Mr. Harshvardhan Nankani, Mr. Shourya Tanay, Ms. Anshu Mehta, Advocates i/b ELP for the Respondent. CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member 2 Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated November 29, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs.
2. In this regard, we have perused the impugned order and we find that the show cause notice dated July 29, 2021 was delivered to the appellant on July 30, 2021. Further, the hearing notice dated September 29, 2021 was also delivered. In spite of service the appellant chose to remain absent and neither filed a reply nor contested the issue. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the appellant was duly served and if the appellant chose not to contest the proceedings then it is not the fault of the respondent but the fault lies totally with the appellant. 3. Having perused the impugned order, we find that the controversy involved in the present appeal is 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. 4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. 3 5. 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 RAJALA Digitally signed Judicial Member by RAJALAKSHMI 22.02.2022 KSHMI H HDate:
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