w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Divyesh Harish Surana Through Power of Attorney Holder (Mr. Harish Mohanlal Surana) v/s Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan

    Misc. Application Nos. 85, 86 of 2021 & Appeal No. 9 of 2021

    Decided On, 09 February 2021

    At, SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN AGARWALA
    By, PRESIDING OFFICER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.T. JOSHI
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Rinku Valanju, Pratham Masurekar, Aditya Shah, Advocates i/b R V Legal. For the Respondent: Abhiraj Arora, Rashi Dalmia, Advocate i/b ELP.



Judgment Text

Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer(Oral)1. Proceedings against the appellant was taken by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’ for short) for violation of the SEBI laws. The Whole Time Member (‘WTM’ for short) passed an order in 2017 debarring the appellant from accessing the securities market for a period of three years. The Adjudicating Officer (‘AO’ for short) initiated proceedings which culminated in passing the impugned order dated January 28, 2019 imposing a penalty of Rs. 15 lakh. The appellant has filed the present appeal against this order which is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.2. There is a delay of 364 days in the filing of the appeal. The ground urged is, that the appellant is living in United States (US) on H1B1 Visa and only came to know about the impugned order when he came back to India on January 10, 2020 and thereafter he authorized his father to file the present appeal.3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the records we are not satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant for condoning this inordinate delay. We find that soon after the passing of the impugned order the father of the appellant wrote letters on March 4, 2019 and again on June 10, 2019 requesting the authority to waive the penalty. The contention of the appellant that his father never informed the appellant about the impugned order cannot be believed. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any sufficient cause made out for condoning this inordinate delay. The Misc. Application for condonation of the delay is rejected, as a result of which, the appeal as also application for stay is also dismissed.4. The present matter was 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

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

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.
O R