Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Shubhra Khandelwal vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal18 January 2024

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appellants, who received the scrip only as sellers pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the High Court and have no connection with the company, its directors or promoters, cannot prima facie be subjected to disgorgement and debarment on the ground that they had some connection with the purchaser; such an imposition, lacking that connection, appears arbitrary, and the operation of the impugned order is therefore stayed pending further hearing.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date : 18.01.2024

Misc. Application No. 1579 of 2023 And Appeal No. 44 of 2024

Shubhra Khandelwal ...Appellant Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent

Mr. Deepak Dhane, Advocate with Mr. Mahir Shah, Advocate i/b Triad Law Chambers for the Appellant.

Mr. Manish Chhangani with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent - SEBI.

WITH Misc. Application No. 1580 of 2023 And Misc. Application No. 1581 of 2023 And Appeal No. 45 of 2024

Ankit Khandelwal ...Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent

Mr. Deepak Dhane, Advocate with Mr. Mahir Shah, Advocate i/b Triad Law Chambers for the Appellant.

Mr. Manish Chhangani with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent - SEBI. 2

WITH Misc. Application No. 1595 of 2023 And Misc. Application No. 1596 of 2023 And Appeal No. 46 of 2024

Maya Devi Khandelwal ...Appellant Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent

Mr. Deepak Dhane, Advocate with Mr. Mahir Shah, Advocate i/b Triad Law Chambers for the Appellant.

Mr. Manish Chhangani with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent - SEBI.

WITH Misc. Application No. 1597 of 2023 And Misc. Application No. 1598 of 2023 And Appeal No. 47 of 2024

Dropdi Khandelwal ...Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent

Mr. Deepak Dhane, Advocate with Mr. Mahir Shah, Advocate i/b Triad Law Chambers for the Appellant.

Mr. Manish Chhangani with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent - SEBI. 3

WITH Misc. Application No. 1599 of 2023 And Misc. Application No. 1600 of 2023 And Appeal No. 48 of 2024

Amit Khandelwal ...Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent

Mr. Deepak Dhane, Advocate with Mr. Mahir Shah, Advocate i/b Triad Law Chambers for the Appellant.

Mr. Manish Chhangani with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent - SEBI.

AND Misc. Application No. 1601 of 2023 And Misc. Application No. 1602 of 2023 And Appeal No. 49 of 2024

Nidhi Khandelwal ...Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent

Mr. Deepak Dhane, Advocate with Mr. Mahir Shah, Advocate i/b Triad Law Chambers for the Appellant.

Mr. Manish Chhangani with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent - SEBI. 4

ORDER:

1. There is a delay in the filing of the appeal. For the reasons

stated in the applications, the delay is condoned. The

applications are allowed.

2. Connect with Appeal No. 791 of 2023 and list on

January 31, 2024.

3. Let a reply be filed by the respondent within a week.

Rejoinder to be filed on or before the next date.

4. The appellants are only sellers of the scrip which they

received pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation passed by the

Bombay High Court. Prima facie, in the absence of any

connection with the Company and its directors and promoters

we find that the imposition of disgorgement and debarment on

the basis that they had some connection with the purchaser

appears to be arbitrary.

5. Considering the aforesaid, we stay the effect and operation

of the impugned order. The stay applications are disposed of

accordingly.

Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member 18.01.2024 MADHUKAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR SHAMRAO SHAMRAO BHALBAR

msb BHALBAR Date: 2024.01.18 15:51:18 +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