Vipul Mohan Joshi vs Sebi

Date of Decision: 30.12.2019

Appeal No.557 of 2019 Vipul Mohan Joshi House No.41, Dattani Apartment, 5/B, Shivaji Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai - 400067. .... Appellant

Versus

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

Mr. Vikas Bengani, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocate i/b. ELP for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)

1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

30th August, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Officer

imposing a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs for violation of Regulations

3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(2)(d) and (e) of the Securities and

Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and 2

Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market)

Regulations, 2003.

2. From a perusal of para 15 of the impugned order we

find that proceedings were initiated against the appellant for

the alleged fraudulent dealings in the shares of Shreekrishna

Biotech Limited. For the said fraudulent dealing proceedings

under Section 11B was initiated by the Whole Time Member

(WTM) who passed an order dated 31st January, 2019

restraining the appellant from accessing the securities market

for a period of three years. For the same fraudulent dealings

and for the same investigation period the Adjudication

proceedings were also initiated under Section 15I and on the

same charges the impugned order was passed.

3. The appellant had earlier filed an Appeal no.105 of

2019 against the order of the WTM dated 31 st January, 2019

which order was set aside and the appeal of the appellant was

allowed by our judgement dated 7th November, 2019. No

further appeal has been filed by the respondent before the

superior forum till date.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent further admits

that the issue is the same which was dealt by the WTM.

Since we have allowed the appeal of the appellant against the 3

order of the WTM and the issue involved is the same we do

not see any reason for continuation of the impugned order

and consequently with the consent of the parties the appeal is

being decided at the admission stage itself without calling for

any affidavit as no factual controversy is involved.

5. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated

30th August, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Officer in so

far as it relates to the appellant is concerned is quashed. The

appeal is allowed.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member

30.12.2019 Prepared and compared by RHN