Wakil Rajbhar vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.569 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a show cause notice sent by speed post has returned undelivered, service effected by affixing the notice at the correct address of the noticee, followed by publication of notice of hearing in a newspaper, constitutes sufficient compliance with Rule 7 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995, and a claim of non-service of the show cause notice fails where those facts are undisputed. Absent any error in the service of the show cause notice effected in this manner, no sufficient cause is shown for remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Officer on the ground of inadequate service.
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: 17.11.2022 Misc. Application No.789 of 2022 And Appeal No.569 of 2022 Wakil Rajbhar Room No.234, Jai Ambe Chawl, Opp. Shilpa General Store, Bhayander West, Mumbai - 401101. ...Appellant Versus Adjudicating Officer Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051. ...Respondent Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora and Mr. Shourya Tanay, Advocates i/b. ELP for the Respondent. CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant has challenged the order dated 17th May, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) wherein a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs was imposed. 3. The ground urged is that he was not served with the show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing has been provided.
We find that the show cause notice dated 30th May, 2018 was initially sent by speed post which returned undelivered. Thereafter, service of the show cause notice was made successfully by affixation on 23rd June, 2018. Notice of hearing was also published in the newspaper on 22nd June, 2019. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts that are not disputed and the notices were sent and affixed at the correct address, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient compliance of the Rule 7 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995. 5. We find do not find any error in the service of the show cause notice and accordingly we do not find any sufficient cause being shown for remanding the matter on the ground of inadequate service of show cause notice. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 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 RAJALAK Digitally signed by SHMI RAJALAKSHMI 17.11.2022 HARISH HARISH NAIR Date: 2022.11.28 RHN NAIR 14:14:12 +05'30'
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