ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA vs BHAVESH PABARI

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 234

RANJAN GOGOI, DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNA
ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
BHAVESH PABARI – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sahil Khanna, Adv. Mr. J.D. Baruah, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Adv. Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR Mr. Samandra B., Adv. Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Vivya Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR, Mr. Jitendra Manilal Malkan, Adv. Ms. Dharita P. Malkan, Adv. Ms. Deepa Goraria, Adv. Ms. Khusboo V. Malkan, Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Nipun Goel, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Lal Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. (AOR) Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. N. Prashant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akhil A. Roy, Adv. Mr. Sahil Singh, Adv. M/s. K.J. John And Co, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR.

JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Two primary questions, in a way interconnected, have been referred by the Referral judgment and order dated 14th March, 2016 passed in Siddharth Chaturvedi vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2016) 12 SCC 119. The correctness of the view expressed on the said two questions by a numerical smaller bench of this Court in Securities and Exchange Board of India through its Chairman vs. Roofit Industries Limited, (2016) 12 SCC 125 would coincidentally arise. The questions referred can be enumerated and summarized as follows:

(i) Whether the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15-J of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI Act") are exhaustive to govern the discretion in the Adjudicating Officer to decide on the quantum of penalty or the said conditions are merely illustrative?
(ii) Whether the power and discretion vested by Section 15-J of the SEBI Act to decide on the quantum of penalty, regardless of the manner in which the first question is answered, stands eclipsed by the penalty provisions contained in Section 15-A to Section 15-HA of the SEBI Act?

3. The SEBI Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 234

RANJAN GOGOI, DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNAADJUDICATING OFFICER, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – AppellantVersusBHAVESH PABARI – Respondent

Cases Referred (6)

RANJAN GOGOI, DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNA
ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
BHAVESH PABARI – Respondent