Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Tariq Nafees vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal21 December 2017J. P. Devadhar

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a penal or adverse order against a person rests on the premise that he was a director of a company at the relevant time, and that premise is shown to be wrong from the official register of the Registrar of Companies, the order is liable to be set aside insofar as it operates against that person.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

DATE : 21.12.2017

Misc. Application No. 307 of 2017 And Appeal No. 337 of 2017

Tariq Nafees H-47/2, 2nd Floor, Muradi Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi - 25. ..... Appellant

Versus

1.

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051.

2. Reserve Bank of India Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 001. ... Respondents

Mr. Tariq Nafees, Appellant in person. Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chirag Bhavsar, Mr. Rohan Agarwal, Advocates i/b MDP & Partners for the Respondents.

CORAM : Justice J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member

Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral)

Misc. Application No. 307 of 2017 :

1. By this misc. application, appellant seeks condonation of 8 days delay

in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is

condoned. Misc. application is disposed of accordingly.

Appeal No. 337 of 2017 :

1. This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the WTM of

SEBI on July 21, 2017. Counsel for SEBI states that the impugned order is

passed against the appellant on the footing that he was a director of 2

Verinder Finance Ltd. Since the appellant has contended that he was not

director of the company at the relevant time, SEBI has verified from the

website of RoC and found that the appellant was in fact not a director at the

relevant time.

2. In these circumstances, the impugned order qua the appellant is

quashed and set aside with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Jog Singh Member

Sd/-

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member 21.12.2017 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