Lopamudra Bandyopadhyay vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India And Others

Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer

The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated December 7, 2018 passed by the Whole Time Member (‘WTM’ for short)

of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’ for short) wherein the appellant along with the company and other noticees have been

directed to refund the money collected through the issuance of redeemable preference shares along with interest @ 15% per annum. The appellant

was also prohibited from directly or indirectly access the securities market for a period of 4 years or till the expiry of 4 years from the date of

completion of refunds to investors. The appeal has been filed belatedly. According to the appellant it was contended that no notice was ever issued

nor was the order delivered and the appellant came to know of the order while browsing the official website of SEBI on July 10, 2019 and the appeal

was filed immediately thereafter.

The contention of the appellant is that in the absence of any opportunity being given to represent and submit her submission the ex-parte order was

liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted from a perusal of the impugned order. We find that the ex-parte interim

order cum show cause notice was served upon the appellant through publication in two newspapers dated July 25, 2018 in the Times of India and

Anandabazar Patrika. There is no assertion in the memo of appeal that she was not aware of the said show cause cum interim order which was

published in the newspapers. The WTM in the impugned order records that inspite of publication the appellant did not appear or contest the

proceedings.

In the absence of any plausible explanation being given for not filing the appeal earlier and in the absence of not questioning the veracity of the

publication in the newspapers we are of the opinion that the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings and non-appearance by the appellant before

the WTM did not violate the principles of natural justice as alleged by him. We accordingly do not find any merit in the appeal as also in the

miscellaneous application and is summarily dismissed.