9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lmira Lasrado and Ms. Afreen Thanevala, Advocates i/b Vis Legis Law Practice, Mr. V.M Singh, Advocate with Ms. Akshaya Bhansali, Advocate and Ms. Nirali Mehta, Practicing Company Secretary i/b Mindspright Legal, Mr. Nimay Dave, Advocate with Ms. Faiza Dhanani, Advocate i/b CUE Legal For the Respondent SEBI : Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Harshvardhan Melanta, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. ORDER PER : JUSTICE TARUN AGARWALA, PRESIDING OFFICER (ORAL) 1. All these appeals are against a common order dated December 24, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO for short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) imposing penalties on eight noticees and are being taken up togeth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. We have heard Shri Vinay Chauhan, Shri V.M. Singh and Shri Nimay Dave, the learned counsel for the appellant in respective appeals and Shri Sumit Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. We find that the GDR was issued by the Company on December 12, 2007 and the present show cause notice was issued on June 9, 2019 after an undue delay of 12 years. It was urged that there is an undue delay in the initiation of the proceedings and, on this short ground the proceedings should be quashed including the impugned order. 7. In this regard we find that a specific plea was raised by the appellants which has been dealt with by the AO in paragraph 25 and 26 of the impugned order. In paragraph 25 the AO noted:- "However, I note that the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation was completed prior to September 2013 steps should have been taken immediately for initiation of proceedings by the AO. We further are of the opinion that when the WTM had issued a show cause notice on September 25, 2013 nothing stopped SEBI / AO from initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant. By sitting over the matter from 2013 to 2019 we are of the opinion that there has been an undue delay in the initiation of the proceedings for which no cogent or valid reasons has been given. 10. In Mr. Rakesh Kathotia vs. SEBI in Appeal No. 7 of 2016 decided by this Tribunal on May 27, 2019. This Tribunal held:- "23. It is no doubt true that no period of limitation is prescribed in the Act or the Regulations for issuance of a sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in the matter of Ashok Shivlal Rupani, SEBI filed Civil Appeal No. 8444-8445 of 2019 before the Supreme Court of India which was dismissed and the order of this Tribunal affirmed by the Supreme Court. 12. Similar view was again reiterated in the matter of Ashlesh Gunvantbhai Shah vs SEBI (Appeal No. 169 of 2019) and other connected appeals decided on January 31, 2020 (2020 SCC OnLine SAT 30) where on account of inordinate delay in the initiation of the proceedings by issuance of the show cause notice, the penalty order was quashed. 13. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that there has been an inordinate delay in the issuance of the show cause notice. Even though there is no period of limitation prescribed in the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
