Vijay Kumar Bohra vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 355 of 2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a show cause notice has been sent to an address other than the appellant's, so that the appellant was never served with it, an ex parte penalty order passed on that footing cannot stand; the order is liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after service of the show cause notice and an opportunity of personal hearing. Where the appellant establishes that he first learned of the impugned order only upon issuance of a recovery certificate and attachment of his bank account, that circumstance constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Misc. Application No. 163 of 2014 And Appeal No. 355 of 2014
Date of Decision : 10.02.2015
Vijay Kumar Bohra C208, Bhaiday Nagar, Second Floor, Navghar Road, Bhayander (E), ...Appellant Pine Code - 401 105.
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent
Dr. S.K. Jain, Practicing Company Secretary for the Appellant.
Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Rodrigues, Advocate i/b Economic Laws Practice for Respondent.
CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer A.S. Lamba, Member
Per : J.P. Devadhar (Oral)
Misc. Application No. 163 of 2014:
By this Miscellaneous Application appellant seeks condonation of
delay in filing the appeal against the impugned order dated January 31,
2012. It is the case of the appellant that the impugned order is an ex parte
order passed without serving a copy of the show cause notice / impugned
order on the appellant. According to appellant, he came to know about the
impugned order only when recovery certificate was issued and bank account 2
of the appellant was attached on June 10, 2014. In these circumstances, we
deem it proper to condone the delay.
Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly with no order as to
costs.
Appeal No. 355 of 2014:
1.
Appellant is aggrieved by the ex parte impugned order dated January
31, 2012 whereby penalty of Rs. 2 lac is imposed upon the appellant
u/s 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Main
grievance of the appellant is that the said order has been passed without
serving a copy of the show cause on the appellant. Learned counsel for the
respondent fairly states that although in the impugned order it is stated that
the show cause notice was sent to the last known address, in fact the said
notice was sent to the wrong address.
2. In these circumstances, impugned order dated January 31, 2012 is
quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of SEBI. SEBI is
directed to pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law after
serving copy of the show cause notice and after giving personal hearing to
the appellant as expeditiously as possible. All contentions on both sides are
kept open.
3. Appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
A.S. Lamba Member 10.02.2015 Prepared and compared by:
msb
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