9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor before us. It was simply stated that since the proceedings were launched by respondent SEBI after a period seven years, the same should be quashed on the ground of delay. The record would show that all the documents concerning the defense of the appellant were filed by her before the AO. Therefore, for want of any prejudice the proceedings cannot be quashed simply on the ground of delay in launching the same. Further, as explained by the learned counsel for the respondent as recorded in paragraph No. 6.4 above, large numbers of entities and transactions were analyzed by SEBI which took some time. Appeal dismissed. - Appeal No. 152 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2020 - Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer And Justice M. T. Joshi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion from one of the connected entity, namely, Dadima Capital (P) Ltd. (Dadima Capital) and sold the same by using the platform of the market to other entities, namely, Nilesh Krushna Palande (Nilesh), Universal Credit Securities Ltd. (Universal Credit) and Fast Track Entertainment Ltd. (Fast Track Entertainment). The table given below paragraph 29 of the impugned order would show that on the given days these trades were from 32% to 55% of the total market volume of all the trading in the scrip of MCL. It was alleged that all the above four entities were connected with each other and with the appellant. In the circumstances, a show cause notice was issued on November 20, 2017. 3. The appellant has replied as under :- 1. From 2007 onw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . SEBI [Appeal No. 4 of 2011 decided on February 11, 2011] and Ashok Shivlal Rupani Anr. vs. SEBI [Appeal No. 417 of 2018 decided on August 22, 2019]. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent SEBI Mr. Vishal Kanade submitted as under :- 1. The appellant did not take any plea of delay in launching the proceedings or the delay resulting into some prejudice to the appellant, before the AO. 2. Suddenly during the appeal, the said plea is raised. 3. The reply to the show cause notice would show that the appellant herself has annexed the copies of all the transactions with the reply. This would show that the appellant was not anyway prejudiced due to delay, if any, in initiating the proceedings. 4. He su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liquid stock and, the transaction between the parties was in large percentage of the total market trades as detailed (supra). The only plea of the appellant is that she acted on the advice of the stock broker and, therefore, not aware of any of the transactions is not supported by any material. In the circumstances, the plea of the appellant cannot be accepted. 10. In the case of Monika Jain (supra) cited by the appellant, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that the alleged facts of circular trade was proved as the circle got completed. It was argued that in the present case no circle was completed. It is, however, to be noted that in the present case there is no allegation of circular trade but of false trades between the connected pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vol.12 SCC 670, State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd (2007) Vol.11 SCC 363 and Joint Collector Ranga Reddy Dist. Anr. vs. D. Narsing Rao Ors. (2015) Vol. 3 SCC 695. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Adjudicating Officer, SEBI vs. Bhavesh Pabari (2019) SCC Online SC 294 held: There are judgments which hold that when the period of limitation is not prescribed, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. What would be reasonable time, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the default/statute, prejudice caused, whether the third-party rights had been created etc. 12. The decision would show that the power to initiate the proceedings must be exercised by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
