Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Tinna Finex Limited vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal31 October 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a show cause notice is admittedly served only at the appellant's superseded address and returns undelivered, the requirement of an adequate opportunity of hearing is not met; an adjudicating order passed on that basis cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and remitted to the adjudicating officer for fresh decision after service of the show cause notice and a hearing.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 31.10.2022 Misc. application No. 1161 of 2022 And Misc. Application No. 1162 of 2022 And Appeal No. 736 of 2022 Tinna Finex Limited CIN-U65910DL1990PL041750 11, Woodvilla, IInd Avenue, Bandh Road, Chandan Haula, New Delhi- 110 074 ...Appellant Versus 1. The Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051 2. Securities and Exchange Board of India, Officer of Recovery, Northern Region Office, 5th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16 Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110 001 ...Respondents Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Vyom Shah, Advocate with Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey and Ms. Shefali Shankar, Advocates i/b MDP & Partners, Advocates for the Respondent. CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member 2 Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. The impugned order dated February 19, 2018 was passed imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs for non-compliance of investor complaints on the SCORES platform.

Since the amount was not paid, a notice of demand was issued which has also been impugned in the present appeal. 2. The short contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the show cause notice was never served upon the appellant nor any opportunity of hearing was provided. 3. In this regard, we find that admittedly the show cause notice was served at the address which was the old address of the appellant and, consequently the same returned undelivered. 4. In the light of the aforesaid admitted position, we are of the opinion that adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided to the appellant. Consequently the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Officer ("AO") for a fresh decision in accordance with law after serving the show cause notice and after giving an opportunity of hearing. 3 5. In this regard, the appellant shall appear before the AO on November 24, 2022 on which dated the AO will serve the show cause notice and proceed from there onwards in accordance with law. Misc. applications are disposed of accordingly.

6. This order will be 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. Certified copy of this order is also available from the Registry on payment of usual charges. Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member Digitally signed RAJALAKSH by RAJALAKSHMI MI HARISH HARISH NAIR 31.10.2022 NAIR Date: 2022.11.02 12:41:52 +05'30' PK

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