Post-death recovery under SEBI law needs clear authority; proceedings against legal representatives and a later recovery certificate were invalid.

Recovery under Section 28A of the SEBI Act is directed against the defaulting person through the prescribed modes of attachment, sale, arrest, or receivership, and the text states that the scheme does not expressly extend to legal representatives after death. It further notes that "person" in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act does not include legal representatives of a deceased defaulter, and Rule 85 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act applies only where death occurs after the recovery certificate has already been drawn. Because the recovery certificate and attachment proceedings were initiated after death, the text states that they lacked jurisdiction and were invalid; the later-inserted Section 23JC of the SCRA was not notified and gave no assistance.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery proceedings under the SEBI Act can be continued against the legal representatives of a deceased defaulter, and whether the recovery certificate issued after the defaulter's death was valid.

Analysis: Section 28A of the SEBI Act authorises recovery of penalty from the person who committed the default by prescribed modes of attachment, sale, arrest, or receivership, and its scheme does not expressly provide for recovery against legal representatives after the person's death. The term "person" as understood through Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act does not extend to legal representatives of a deceased person. Rule 85 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act applies only where the defaulter dies after the recovery certificate has already been drawn, which was not the position here. The recovery certificate and attachment proceedings were initiated after death and, therefore, lacked jurisdiction. The later-inserted Section 23JC of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 was not notified and could not assist the respondent.

Conclusion: Recovery proceedings could not be continued against the legal representatives, and the recovery certificate issued after death was authority of law and invalid.

---