AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
We have heard Mr. Joby Mathew, the learned counsel alongwith Mr. Anshuman Sugla, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vishal
Kanade, the learned counsel alongwith Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, the learned counsel for the respondent through video conference.
Pursuant to the show cause notice dated October 13, 2017, the appellant appeared and submitted a reply on October 15, 2019. The impugned order
was passed by the Whole Time Member (hereinafter referred to as ‘WTM’) on April 13, 2020 finding the appellant guilty and restraining him
from accessing the securities market for a period of two years. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present appeal.
There is a delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application and considering that the appeal was filed during the pandemic period,
we condone the delay. The delay condonation application is allowed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that a specific assertion was made by the appellant that he had filed a reply on October
15, 2019 which has not been considered by the WTM.
We find from the impugned order, namely, paragraph 10 that the WTM has given a specific finding that no reply was filed by the appellant. When we
questioned this fact the learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the reply of the appellant dated October 15, 2019 was received by the
respondent on October 17, 2019.
In view of the aforesaid admission, we are of the opinion that the impugned order in so far as the appellant is concerned has been passed without
consideration of the reply filed by the appellant and, therefore, on this short ground the impugned order cannot be sustained in so far as the appellant is
concerned.
For the reasons stated aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed in so far as the appellant is concerned. The appeal is allowed. The matter is
remitted to the WTM to reconsider the matter afresh after considering the reply of the appellant and after taking into consideration all other factors
and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In view of the aforesaid, parties shall bear their own costs.
The present matter was heard through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage, it is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a
certified copy of this order could be issued by the Registry. In these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed by the Presiding Officer on behalf
of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a digitally signed
copy sent by fax and/or email.