TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BI' for short) imposing penalties against each of the appellants for violation of Section 12(A)(a), (b) and (c) read with Regulations 3(a),(b),(c) & (d) and 4(1), (4(2)(a) and (g) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 ('PFUTP Regulations' for short). Since the issue is common all the appeals are being decided by a common order. 2. Certain irregularities in the scrip of M/s. Oregon Commercial Ltd. now known as M/s. Saianand Commercial Ltd. was noticed by SEBI and accordingly an investigation was started in August 2011 for the period January 4, 2010 to January 10, 2011. Based on this investigation and the investigation report, a show cause notice was iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of delay was not raised by the appellants and consequently it is no longer open to the appellants to raise a plea of laches at this stage. It was also contended that the SEBI Act does not provide any period of limitation and therefore proceedings cannot be quashed only on the ground of laches. It was further contended that the respondent in any case have explained the delay in the issuance of the show cause notice which has been explicitly stated in their additional affidavit dated December 20, 2019 which should be considered and the delay, if any, in the issuance of show cause notice in the peculiar circumstances of the case should be condoned. 6. We have heard the leaned counsel for the parties in the respective appeals. From the materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent another 17 months to issue the show cause notice. The explanation given in the additional affidavit is patently farcical and appears to be an afterthought. 9. An objection was raised by the respondent that the appellants did not raise the issue of delay before the AO. This fact is apparently incorrect as some of the appellants have raised a specific issue with regard to the inordinate delay in issuing the show cause notice. In this regard, we find from a perusal of Appeal No. 171 of 2019 that the appellants had made a specific assertion with regard to the inordinate delay in the issuance of the show cause notice. Similar objection has been raised in Appeal No. 171, 172 etc. For facility, paragraph 3 of the reply given by the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the market, it also has demoralizing effect on the market players who are ultimately 'not found guilty' but damocles' sword of inquiry keeps hanging on them for years together from the date of starting investigation by the Board to the date of completion of inquiry proceedings", notice hereby requests SEBI to provide explanation for the inordinate delay and request SEBI to dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible." Similar objections have been raised by the other appellants. 10. It was contended that all the appellants have not raised the issue of delay and therefore they cannot be permitted to raise the issue of delay for the first time before this Tribunal. 11. On this aspect we are of the opinion that the issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in Government of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras and Others, [AIR (1989) SC 1771] held that in the absence of any period of limitation, the authority is required to exercise its powers within a reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period would depend on the facts of each case and that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard as the determination of this question would depend on the facts of each case. This proposition of law has been consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill [2004] Vol.12 SCC 670, State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk (P.) Union Ltd. [2007] Vol.11 SCC 363 and Joint Collector Ranga Reddy Dist. & Anr. v. D. Narsing Rao & Ors. [....