2019 (10) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Misc. Application No.302 of 2017 There is a delay of 99 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The Misc. Application is allowed. Appeal No.327 of 2017 1. The impugned order has been passed against the appellant for violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI Act') and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'PIT Regulations') on the ground that the appellant, being the Managing Director of M/s. Sigrun Holdings Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SHL') sold 45,000 shares of SHL on 24th May, 2010 while having knowledge/possession of the adver....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant to furnish certain information. The said information was supplied by the appellant to SEBI through email on 13th May, 2013. Similar information was also sought by SEBI from the appellant's broker JHP Securities Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'JHP'). Certain information was also supplied to SEBI by JHP. Based on the information given and investigation made, a show cause notice dated 15th September, 2014 was issued to the appellant at the last known address which came back undelivered. The show cause notice was thereafter affixed at the last known address of the appellant. The Adjudicating Officer thereafter issued a notice directing the appellant to appear for personal hearing which notice also came back undelivered. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 at the last known address and such procedure having been made in accordance with the rules being followed, in that event, there was no illegality in the service of the show cause notice done by the respondent. It was thus contended that the principles of natural justice was not violated. 6. We have heard Mr. Neville P. Lashkari, Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditya Vyas, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anubhav Ghosh and Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Advocates for the Respondent. 7. The show cause notice was issued admittedly to the last known address of the appellant under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld be made by affixation at the place where he had last resided or carried on business. 9. In the instant case, we do not find anything on record to indicate that any effort was made by the respondent to serve the show cause notice personally. We do not find that any effort was made to serve at the place where he carried on business or had worked for gain. Thus, without complying with the procedure adopted under Clause (a) and (b) of Rule 7 the respondent cannot take direct steps for affixation under Clause (c). Further, we find that the show cause notice that was sent by speed post came back undelivered. No effort was made to find out as to whether the appellant was residing at that premises or not. We are, further, of the opinion that ....