Syncom Healthcare Ltd. & Ors. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 145 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an adjudicating order does not make clear whether a penalty is imposed on the named entities individually or collectively, and the submissions made by the appellants have not been properly considered, the order is liable to be set aside as against those appellants and the matter restored for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI DATE : 18.05.2018
Misc. Application No. 111 of 2018 And Appeal No. 145 of 2018
1.
Syncom Healthcare Ltd. 502, Advent Ateria, Chincholi Bunder Road, Opp. Kingaston Complex, Malad (West), Mumbai - 400064.
2. Ajay Bankda C/o Syncom Healthcare Ltd. 502, Advent Ateria, Chincholi Bunder Road, Opp. Kingaston Complex, Malad (West), Mumbai - 400064.
3. Jyoti Bankda C/o Syncom Healthcare Ltd. 502, Advent Ateria, Chincholi Bunder Road, Opp. Kingaston Complex, Malad (West), Mumbai - 400064. ..... Appellants
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent
Mr. Yash Jain, Advocate i/b Halai & Co. for the Appellants. Mr. Sagar Ghogre, Advocate with Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Advocate i/b K. Ashar & Co. the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral)
Misc. Application No. 111 of 2018 :
By this misc. application appellants seek condonation of 33 days
delay in filing this appeal. For the reasons stated in the misc. application,
delay is condoned. Accordingly, misc. application is disposed of. 2
Appeal No. 145 of 2018 :
1. This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the Adjudicating
Officer ('A. O.' for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India
('SEBI' for short) on November 30, 2017.
2. In view of the fact there is no clarity in the impugned order as to
whether the penalty is imposed on the entities named therein individually or
collectively and in view of the fact that the submissions made by the
appellants have not been properly considered in the impugned order, we set
aside the impugned order qua the appellants and restore the matter for fresh
decision on merits and in accordance with law.
3. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member
18.05.2018 Prepared & Compared by PTM
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