Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Veerhealth Care Ltd. vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal15 November 2017J.P. Devadhar

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal is allowed solely by reference to the Tribunal's earlier decision in Gopalakrishnan Raman & Ors vs. SEBI, which the parties agreed covers the present issue; the reasons for that earlier decision are not set out in this order, so no ratio can be extracted from this text itself. The delay of 16 days is condoned on the reasons stated in the miscellaneous application, which are not reproduced here.

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 : 15/11/2017

Misc. Application No.290 of 2017 And Appeal No.314 of 2017

Veerhealth Care Ltd. 629-A, Gazdar House, 1st Floor, Near Kalbadevi Post Office, J.S.S. Marg, Mumbai - 400 002. ... Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent

Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Aditya Mehta a/w Mr. Mihit Mody and Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.

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.290 OF 2017:

1.

There is a delay of 16 days in filing this appeal. For the reasons

stated in the Misc. Application, the delay is condoned. The Misc.

Application is disposed of accordingly. 2

APPEAL NO.314 OF 2017:

2. This appeal is filed to challenge the order passed by the

Adjudicating Officer of Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI"

for short) on 7th August, 2017. By the said order, penalty of Rs.5 lakh is

imposed on the appellant under Section 23 A read with Section 23E of

Securities Contracts (Regulations) Act.

3. Counsel for the parties state that the issue raised in this appeal is

covered by the decision of this Tribunal in favour of the Appellant in

the case of Gopalakrishnan Raman & Ors vs. SEBI (Appeal No.281 of

2014 decided on 20th November, 2015). For the reasons stated in the

aforesaid decision, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.

4. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Jog Singh Member

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

15/11/2017 Prepared & compared by-dg

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