Chandrakala Purohit And Others vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India

We have heard the learned senior counsel/ learned counsel for the parties in various appeals at some length. In the appeal of Vibhuti Multitrade

Pvt. Ltd. vs SEBI Appeal No. 181 of 2021 there is a delay of 197 days in the filing of the appeal. This delay application has been opposed by SEBI

contending that no sufficient cause has been shown to this inordinate delay. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion

that the impugned order was sent by email on August 27, 2020 but according to the appellant the company’s employees were not working to its

full strength on account of the COVID pandemic and that they only came to know about the order in October 2020. In any case, the impugned order

was received by them on October 28, 2020 and the appeal was filed thereafter on February 12, 2021. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the opinion

that considering the pandemic situation cause shown is sufficient. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. A reply to the

memorandum of appeal has been filed by the respondent. The appellant is allowed three weeks time to file rejoinder.

Certain intervention applications have been filed by the company Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd. in some of the appeals contending that they must be

impleaded as a necessary party or in the alternative they should be allowed to be heard. It was contended that in the proceedings before Whole Time

Member (“WTM†for convenience) the company was a noticee and against the orders passed by the WTM in the appeals filed before this

Tribunal the company has been impleaded as a necessary party. It was contended that even though the lis between the appellant is with the SEBI as a

penalty order has been passed for violation of certain securities laws, nonetheless, the appellant being a interested party should be heard. Considering

the aforesaid and coupled with the fact that the appellant has also filed an appeal against the same order of the Adjudicating Officer (“AOâ€) we

are of opinion that it is not necessary for the appellant to be impleaded as a necessary party in these appeals. However, the appellant will be heard

when all the appeals are being heard together. The intervention applications are accordingly disposed off.

Stay applications have been filed in Appeal Nos. 54 of 2021, 56 of 2021 and 526 of 2020. It was contended that whereas the disposal of the

proceedings were taking time, on the other hand, the Recovery Officer has issue notice directing the said appellants to deposit the money. We find

that in the Appeal of Comfort Intech Limited, a penalty of Rs. 1 crore was imposed and this Tribunal by an interim order had directed the said

appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. Similarly in the case of Comfort Securities Limited the penalty of Rs. 6 crores was imposed and by an

interim order the Tribunal had directed the said appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore.

Considering the aforesaid, coupled with the fact that the appeals cannot be finally disposed off today we direct the appellant Chandrakala Purohit

and Amit Khemka to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs and Anil Agarwal a sum of Rs. 1 crore within three weeks from today. If the said amount is

deposited the balance amount shall not be recovered during the pendency of the appeal. The stay applications are accordingly disposed off.

In the Appeal of J J Fincap Private Limited vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 481 of 2020). There is a delay of 39 days in the filing of the appeal. For the

reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed.

List all these appeals for admission and for final disposal on June 24, 2021.

Parties are directed to take instructions from the Registrar 48 hrs. before the date fixed in order to find out as to whether the matters would be

taken up for hearing through video conference or through physical hearing.

The present matters were heard through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor

a certified copy of this order could be issued by the Registry. In these circumstances, 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. Parties will act on production of a digitally

signed copy sent by fax and/or email.