Misc. Application No. 14 of 2014 and Review Application No. 3 of 2014 in Appeal No. 151 of 2013. Case: Grishma Securities Private Limited and Ors. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India. Securities and Exchange Board of India
| Case Number | Misc. Application No. 14 of 2014 and Review Application No. 3 of 2014 in Appeal No. 151 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, Mr.Ravichandra S. Hegde and Mr. Abishek Venkatraman, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate and Mr. Pratham Masurekar, Advocate |
| Judges | J.P. Devadhar, J. (Presiding Officer), Jog Singh, Member and A.S. Lamba, Member |
| Issue | Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Sections 11, 11(4), 11B |
| Judgement Date | April 23, 2014 |
| Court | Securities and Exchange Board of India |
Order:
Jog Singh, Member
1. The present review is directed against the order dated October 28, 2013 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 151 of 2013, upholding the impugned order dated July 31, 2013 issued by the learned Whole Time Member (W.T.M.) of the respondent-S.E.B.I. under Sections 11(4), 11B of the S.E.B.I. Act, 1992 read with Regulation 11(1) of the S.E.B.I. (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003. By the said order dated July 31, 2013, the appellants - were restrained from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities in their proprietary accounts for a period of five years. Earlier ad-interim ex-parte restraint order dated December 28, 2011 regarding appellants' stock-broking business was directed to be continued till the completion of the enquiry proceedings. Shri Khambatta, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of the review applicant, argued that when the restraint order against other brokers and appellants' own client like Mr. Chetan Dave has since been revoked by the learned W.T.M. of respondent S.E.B.I. by order dated December 28, 2011, there was no reason to continue the long drawn restrain order against the appellants. It is argued by Shri Khambatta that apart from the issue of discrimination, this Tribunal has also not dealt with the doctrine of proportionality while confirming the impugned order passed by the W.T.M. of S.E.B.I. dated July 31, 2013 while passing the order under review. Relying upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Vashi Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. S.E.B.I. [Appeal No. 154 of 2012 etc. decided on April 8, 2013], it is contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that unless rational/justification is set out in the impugned order for differently treating persons similarly situated, it cannot be sustained. It is argued that since these aspects have not been considered in our order dated October 28, 2013, it is just and proper to allow the review application.
2. Per contra, Shri Shiraz Rustomjee, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of S.E.B.I. has submitted that this point raised by the appellants in review has already been considered by this Tribunal while passing the order under review. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [2009 (5) SCC 65] in the case of State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors., Shri Rustomjee submitted that unwarranted sympathy...
To continue reading
Request your trial