TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in October 20, 2016. No further action is taken till issuance of communication as per Annexure-B in 2019, calling upon the petitioner to remain present during the hearing. A perusal of the orders passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal shows that the said Tribunal has consistently held delay of five years and more in initiating action by the SEBI as unsustainable - even if petitioner is relegated to SEBI to attend the hearing as contemplated in communication Annexure-B and if petitioner were to suffer any adverse order, he can challenge the same before the Appellate Tribunal - Tribunal has decided the matter only on the point of delay without going into the merits. In this case, reckoned from the date of complaints, the delay is about fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gust 20, 2019 (Annexure-B), SEBI called upon the petitioner to remain present for hearing on September 13, 2019 at its Mumbai Office. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has presented this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said notices. 5. Shri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Advocate urged following grounds in support of this petition: there is inordinate delay of more than five years in issuing the show-cause notice dated October 20, 2016; SEBI did not act on the show-cause notice immediately and has called upon the petitioner to attend a hearing after a lapse of three years from the date of the show-cause notice; Companies Act, 1956 stood repealed in 2013. Under Section 465 of the Companies Act, only such act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irregularities in the script, the Tribunal has held that delay of seven years is inordinate. In the case of Sanjay Jethalal Soni and others Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Appeal No.102 of 2019 decided on 14.11.2019 , the Tribunal has held delay of five years as inordinate. The Tribunal has placed reliance on several decisions of the Apex Court and quashed the show-cause notices. 9. Shri. Nithin Prasad is right in his submission that in normal circumstances, this Court ought not to and does not interfere with show-cause notice. In the case on hand, complaints with regard to non-payment of dividends were registered between 2010 and 2012. Annexure-D is the screen shot of the case status. It shows that SEBI has closed the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
