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



Inventure Finance Pvt. Ltd. v/s Securities and Exchange Board of India

    Misc. Application Nos. 568 of 2019, 622 of 2019 In Appeal No. 218 of 2015

    Decided On, 28 November 2019

    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, Advocate i/b R V Legal. For the Respondent: Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate, Nishit Dhruva, Rohan Agrawal, Advocates i/b MDP & Partners.



Judgment Text


Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer

Oral:

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It transpires that an ex parte ad interim order dated August 14, 2014 was passed by the Whole Time Member (‘WTM’ for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’ for short) restraining the appellant from accessing the securities market and prohibiting it from buying, selling or dealing in the securities market. The said ex parte ad interim order was confirmed on March 31, 2015. On December 7, 2017 a show cause notice was issued under Section 11(1), 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 to show cause as to why suitable directions should not be issued for the alleged violations committed by the appellant. The appellant has appeared and contesting the matter before the WTM of SEBI since 2017. The hearing has been conducted and the appellant was last heard on March 20, 2019. The proceedings are still going on and have not been concluded.

2. On the other hand, the debarment order is continuing since 2014 and the appellant has been restrained from the last five years and the proceedings are not being concluded.

3. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the respondent SEBI Shri Kevic Setalvad that the proceedings against 116 entities have been issued and therefore the hearing is taking some time. It was, thus, prayed that three months time may be allowed to the respondent SEBI to pass appropriate orders.

4. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that considerable time has elapsed and the appellant is unnecessary facing debarment without there being a final order against it. If there are a large number of entities then the WTM of SEBI should consider and pass separate orders atleast insofar as the appellant is concerned.

5. We accordingly direct the WTM of SEBI to reconsider the ex parte ad interim order and the confirmatory order in the event it is n

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ot possible for the WTM to pass a final order pursuant to the show cause notice after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant on or before December 15, 2019. 6. Misc. Applications are disposed of.
O R