TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated August 27, 2014 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'AO') imposing a penalty of Rs. 70 lacs under Section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as, 'SEBI Act') for violating Regulations 3 and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'PFUTP Regulations'). The appellant has also challenged the recovery certificate dated May 3, 2017 and the attachment proceedings issued by the Recovery Officer. 2. There is a delay of 1446 days in filing the appeal and, therefore, a Misc. Application has also been filed for condoning th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant from the bank, the appellant came to know that the account was blocked due to a legal order. Before he could further investigate in the matter, his employer, namely, Elite received the attachment proceedings from National Securities Depository Ltd. (NSDL) and, on that basis, his employer terminated his services on May 22, 2017. It is alleged that thereafter he made enquiries and contacted Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain and then came to know about the transactions done by Mr. Jain from his proprietorship firm. It is contended that the appellant thereafter made a complaint before the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) on November 23, 2017 and also made a representation to SEBI on April 16, 2018 and subsequently, filed the present appeal in Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was contended that the procedure laid down in the Inquiry Rules was duly followed and, therefore, there was no violation of natural justice. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that due procedure for serving the show cause notice was duly followed by SEBI in accordance with the Rule 7 of the Inquiry Rules. The summons was sent at the address that was obtained by SEBI from the stock exchange. However, the fact remains that the appellant had resigned and left the service of Pioneer Securities Pvt. Ltd. in 2006 and thereafter joined Elite. The fact that the appellant had joined Elite and was working till 2017 when the attachment order was served cannot be disputed by the respondent as attachment order was served th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ltd. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India decided on August 4, 2008), the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay of 720 days on payment of costs. 12. In Ummer vs. Pottengal Subinda, [2018 SCC OnLine SC 199], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellant was not required to explain each days delay in filing the appeal and if plausible grounds are indicated then the same would be a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. 13. Similarly, in Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. vs. Gobardhan Sao and Ors. [(2002) 3 SCC 195], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice especially when no negligence or inaction or want of b....