Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Shyam Sunder Jolly vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal14 September 2021Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An interim injunction or ad-interim order passed as a provisional measure does not decide the lis or adjudicate the violations alleged, and so does not bar the issuance of a show cause notice on the same matter; a show cause notice is therefore not vitiated on the ground that the appellant was already punished for the same violation, where the earlier order was only an interim injunction and a full opportunity to defend will be given in the new proceedings.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision: 14.09.2021

Appeal No. 584 of 2021

Shyam Sunder Jolly House No. D-2, Kansal Apartments, Ward No. 6, Mehrauli, Near PIR Ki Mazar, Delhi- 110 030 ...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. Amit Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Kapila Mahendroo, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Bhushan Shah, Mr. Chirag Shah, Mr. Akash Jain and Ms. Daksha Kasekar, Advocates i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Respondent.

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

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)

1.

The appellant has challenged the show cause notice

dated July 16, 2021 contending that this show cause notice is

bad in law and that the appellant having already been punished 2

for the same violation and therefore such show cause notice for

the same violation cannot be issued.

2. We find that pursuant to a report submitted by the

National Stock Exchange of India Limited an ex-parte ad-

interim order was passed on October 11, 2019 which was

subsequently confirmed on January 24, 2020. Pursuant to the

Forensic Auditors report a show cause notice has now been

issued. We are of the opinion that the ad-interim orders which

was confirmed was only an injunction as an interim measure

and did not decide the lis or the dispute or the violations

committed, if any, by the appellant. Now a show cause notice

has been issued and full opportunity would be given to the

appellant to defend himself.

3. Thus, we do not find any error in the issuance of the

show cause notice. The appeal fails and is dismissed summarily

at the admission stage 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 3

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 14.09.2021 RAJALA Digitally by signed

PK KSHMI RAJALAKSHMI NAIR H

Date: 2021.09.15 H NAIR 11:32:59 +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