9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EBI Act committed prior to the 2002 amendment - revisionist would argue that no part of the cause of action in the original complaint that was adjudicated by SEBI arose in Kolkata and the entire proceedings were initiated at Mumbai in which the revisionist was penalised as said first proceeding was carried in appeal to the Securities Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai, which affirmed the order of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings and, therefore, the revisional application must fail and hereby dismissed. - Rajasekhar Mantha, J. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Mr. Piyush Hans, Mr. Rahul Auddy for the Petitioner. Mr. Gourab Kr. Basu, Ms. Dipanwita Dey for the SEBI. ORDER The revisionist is aggrieved by the process issued in Special Case No. SEBI/3/2019 under Section 24 and triable under Section 26A, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty was thus payable at kolkata. The revisionist would argue that no part of the cause of action in the original complaint that was adjudicated by SEBI arose in Kolkata and the entire proceedings were initiated at Mumbai in which the revisionist was penalised. The said first proceeding was carried in appeal to the Securities Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai, which affirmed the order of the Adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Adjudicating Officer. Since the final order of the Adjudicating Officer has been upheld all the way to the Supreme Court. The issue as to the person to whom the penalty should be paid can no longer be reopened. The impugned proceedings are for failure on the part of the Revisionist to repay the amount of the order of the Adjudicating Officer to the Regional Manager of the SEBI at Kolkata. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
