Som Prakash Goenka vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal8 October 2020

CitationAppeal No.323 of 2020

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal, having been asked to stay an order debarring the appellant from the securities market on the ground of undue delay, declines to consider the stay application until the respondent has filed a reply and the appellant a rejoinder, and defers the interim application to the next listing; the order records directions for pleadings and listing and does not determine the merits of the delay contention.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate: 8.10.2020Misc. Application No.331 of 2020AndMisc. Application No.332 of 2020AndAppeal No.323 of 2020Som Prakash Goenka ...AppellantVersusSecurities and Exchange Board of India ...RespondentMr. Sharan Jagtiani Senior Advocate with Mr. AkshayDoctor Advocate, Dr. S. K. Jain (PCS) i/b Vikas Bengani,for the Appellants.Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocate with Ms. Kinjal Bhatt,Advocates i/b. Vidhii Partners for the Respondent.Order:1.Connect with Appeal No.319 of 2020. A contentionwas made that there is undue delay in the issuance ofnotice as well as in the passing of the impugned order.It was contended that the last hearing took place on19th February, 2019 and it took more than 17 months topass the impugned order on 3rd September, 2020. Itwas thus urged that the impugned order debarring the2appellant from accessing the securities market shouldbe stayed during the pendency of the appeal.2. We are of the opinion that a reply should be filed bythe respondent before we consider the stay application.We accordingly direct the respondent to file a replywithin four weeks. Three weeks thereafter to theappellant to file rejoinder affidavit. List on 11thDecember, 2020.3. In the event the matter is not finally decided on thatday it will be open to the appellant to press the interimapplication. Misc. Application no.331 of 2020 isdisposed of accordingly.4. Parties are directed to contact the Registrar 48 hoursbefore the date fixed to find out as to whether thehearing would take place through video conferencingor through physical hearing.5. The present matter was heard through videoconference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage itis not possible to sign a copy of this order nor acertified copy of this order could be issued by theregistry. In these circumstances, this order will be3digitally signed by the Presiding Officer on behalf ofthe bench and all concerned parties are directed to acton the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties willact on production of a digitally signed copy sent by faxand/or email.

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881 de7ac2ab7954d509c85ed6e0f7c41,

AGARWAL serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f 5e7999727d404aa38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.10.08 15:29:33 +05'30'

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member

8.10.2020 RHN

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