2015 (7) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... J.P. Devadhar (Oral) 1. Appellants in all these appeals are aggrieved by the order passed by the Whole Time Member ('WTM' for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) on July 24, 2014, whereby the appellants are directed to disgorge the unlawful gains and are restrained from accessing the securities market and prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities directly or indirectly for a period of 10 years from that date. 2. Grievance of Mr. Dwarkadas, learned Senior counsel for appellants is that the impugned order is unsustainable not only on merits but also on ground that the said order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. 3. Relevant facts are that, in the earlier .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is Tribunal dated 21/10/2010 and amounts to double jeopardy in the eyes of law. Appellants requested SEBI to decide the above issue as preliminary issue. In the said reply it was specially stated that they were reserving their right to file detailed reply after obtaining copy of the investigation report, inspection of documents and cross examination of the witnesses whose statement are relied upon in the show cause notice, in case the preliminary issue is decided against the appellants. 5. In the notice given by SEBI fixing personal hearing on August 13, 2013 nothing was stated that the appellants are called upon to make submissions on the preliminary issue as also on merits. According to the appellants the arguments advance by them at the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to be dismissed. 9. We have carefully considered rival submissions advanced by counsel on both sides. 10. Admittedly, the show cause notice issued on December 27, 2012 after remand did not indicate as to whether it was issued as a supplementary show cause notice to the earlier show cause notice dated December 18, 2008 or it was issued in supersession of the earlier show cause notice dated December 18, 2008. Admittedly, appellants had sought clarification in that behalf in their reply dated May 8, 2013, however no order was passed to that effect. There is nothing on record to suggest that the personal hearing fixed on August 13, 2013 was for hearing on the preliminary issue as also for hearing on merits. 11. Moreover, from the written su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X