9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice and for completion of the adjudication proceedings, nonetheless, the authorities are required to exercise its powers within a reasonable period. In AO, SEBI vs Bhavesh Pabari [ 2019 (3) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT ] the Supreme Court held that an authority is required to exercise its powers within a reasonable period. Thus we are of the opinion that power to adjudicate has not been exercised within a reasonable period. Consequently, no penalty could be imposed. - Misc. Application No. 350 of 2022 And Misc. Application No. 357 of 2022 And Appeal No. 119 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2023 - With Misc. Application No. 643 of 2022 And Misc. Application No. 1208 of 2022 And Appeal No. 152 of 2022 With Appeal No. 216 of 2022 With Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to SEBI to complete the investigation and initiate proceedings, if any. Based on the aforesaid, after conclusion of the investigation, a show cause notice dated September 25, 2013 was issued by the Whole Time Member ( WTM for short). The matter was contested by the noticees and thereafter the WTM passed an order of debarment by its order dated December 31, 2014. This order was challenged in an appeal before this Tribunal which appeals were dismissed by an order dated October 12, 2017. 3. On the same facts and on the same cause of action and for the same violation the AO initiated proceedings by issuance of a show cause notice on June 9, 2021 which after contest has resulted in the passing of the impugned order on December 24, 2021 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing replies and hearing in the matter. Thus, I note that there is no delay in the present adjudication proceedings. 8. With regard to the findings given by the AO that the investigation took time as it involved various entities registered under foreign jurisdiction and required collaboration with various regulators and collection of information we find that the investigation was completed as far back prior to issuance of the show cause notice dated September 25, 2013 issued by the WTM. Once the investigation stood completed prior to September 25, 2013 nothing stopped the respondents from not issuing another show cause notice for initiation of penalty proceedings. No explanation whatsoever has been given as to why penalty proceedings co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of each case. This proposition of law has been consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (2004) 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 ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
