Touhid Alam vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 591 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellant's contention that his signature was obtained by fraud, and his later plea that the signature was forged, are contradictory stands; where a party has taken shifting positions of this kind, the later stand may be treated as an afterthought, and the appellant's failure to substantiate the fraud finding of the Whole Time Member is not disturbed on appeal. Where an expert report is tendered in proceedings but is not prepared in accordance with the directions laid down in the final order, the Whole Time Member is entitled to reject it on that ground, and such a rejection, not having been disputed, does not warrant interference in appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 21.02.2020
Appeal No. 591 of 2019
Touhid Alam ..... Appellant son of Nazrul Islam Village Velurchak, Post Gangads Para, P. S. Domkal, District Murshidabad, West Bengal - 742303.
Versus
1.
Securities & Exchange Board of India ... Respondents SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
2. The Whole Time Member, Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
3. The Manager, Enforcement Division - 1, DRA-IV, Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
Mr. Fauzan Shaikh, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate with Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondents. 2
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order
dated December 28, 2018 passed by the Whole time Member
(hereinafter referred to as 'WTM') of Securities and Exchange Board
of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') wherein a categorical
finding was given against the appellant to the effect that he had failed
to substantiate that his signature was fraudulently obtained or that he
had never signed any document for becoming the promoter of the
company in question.
2. The contention of the appellant is that he had never given his
consent to become the promoter of the company nor had signed any
document and, therefore, his signatures were fraudulently obtained.
In this regards, he has also filed a report of an handwriting expert
which according to the appellant was not correctly considered by the
WTM.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having
perused the record, we find that contradictory stand has been taken
by the appellant from time to time. Initially, the appellant 3
contended that his signature was fraudulently obtained and
subsequently, it was converted to a forged signature. In view of this
contradictory stand, it is a clear that the stand of the appellant
appears to be an afterthought for the purpose of escaping his liability.
The WTM has dwelt on this aspect at length and has also given a
finding that the expert report submitted by the appellant is not in
accordance with the directions given in the final order regarding
submission of signature verification by an expert recognized or
registered or affiliated by the Government of India which fact has not
been disputed before us.
4. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
Dismissed.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member
Sd/-
Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 21.02.2020 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