Securities Appellate Tribunal
Shailesh S. Jhaveri vs Sebi on 28 February, 2014
Author: J.P. Devadhar
Bench: J.P. Devadhar
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision: 28.02.2014
Misc. Application No. 13 of 2014
In
Review Application No. 5 of 2012
In
Appeal No. 79 of 2012
Securities and Exchange Board of India,
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ...Applicant/
Mumbai - 400 051 Original Respondent
Versus
Shailesh S. Jhaveri
A‐2, Manibhadra Flats,
New Girdhar Park Society,
Ambawadi, ...Respondent/
Ahmedabad - 380 015 Original Applicant
AND
Review Application No. 6 of 2012
In
Appeal No. 80 of 2012
Securities and Exchange Board of India,
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ...Applicant/
Mumbai - 400 051 Original Respondent
Versus
Mrs. Harsha M. Shah
A‐2, Manibhadra Flats,
New Girdhar Park Society,
Ambawadi, ...Respondent/
Ahmedabad - 380 015 Original Applicant
Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Pratham V. Masurekar, Advocate
for the Applicant/ Original Respondent.
Mr. Deepak Shah, Advocate for the Respondent/ Original Applicant.
CORAM: Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer
Jog Singh, Member
2
Per: Jog Singh (Oral)
1.The present applicant that is Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) has been the original respondent in Review Application No. 5 of 2012 in Appeal No. 79 of 2012 preferred by the original appellant Shri Shailesh S. Jhaveri. The two Review Applications No. 5 of 2012 and No. 6 of 2012 in Appeal Nos. 79 of 2012 and 80 of 2012 respectively were dismissed by our order dated November 14, 2013.
2. By way of present Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2014 applicant SEBI, seeks correction in our order dated November 14, 2013 passed in the aforesaid two Review Applications at page no. 5, paragraph 4 which reads as follows:
"4. On the other hand, Respondent submits that the grounds raised by Review Applicant are in effect grounds of Appeal. Therefore, if the Appellant is aggrieved by order dated 4th October, 2012 passed by this Tribunal, Review Applicants may have recourse to such proceedings as envisaged under Section 15(Z) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, if so advised. Respondent has vehemently disputed the grounds and propositions advanced on behalf of Review Applicants in Review Application. Respondent has also specifically submitted that the disgorgement proceedings against eight other connected persons in the matter of Ojas Technochem Products Ltd. (OTPL) have since been initiated by show cause notices dated January 25, 2012 and the same are pending. Names of eight such persons are;
(i) Nrupesh C. Shah, (ii) Falguni N. Shah, (iii) Pratima G. Jhaveri, (iv) Ankit G. Jhaveri, (v) Annal A. Jhaveri, (vi) Sheetal A. Jhaveri, (vii) Yogesh K. Bhavnagari, and (viii) Saumil A. Bhavnagari. Thus, Respondent submits that the Review Applicants have not at all been discriminated in any manner whatsoever in passing disgorgement order in question."3
3. Learned counsel for the applicant SEBI, submits that in line no. 9 of the said para 4 of our order wrongly 'disgorgement proceedings' have been written. Learned counsel further submits that instead of 'disgorgement proceedings' it should be 'investigation proceedings'. Similarly, in line no. 11 it is inadvertently written 'show cause notices' dated January 25, 2012 whereas in fact this should be 'order' dated January 25, 2012.
4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and we note that the above error in the order have crept in due to inadvertence and are required to be rectified. Accordingly, it is directed that in paragraph 4 of the order dated November 14, 2013 following lines shall be inserted at appropriate place.
5. After said incorporation, para 4 of our order dated November 14, 2013 shall read as under:
"4. On the other hand, Respondent submits that the grounds raised by Review Applicant are in effect grounds of Appeal. Therefore, if the Appellant is aggrieved by order dated 4th October, 2012 passed by this Tribunal, Review Applicants may have recourse to such proceedings as envisaged under Section 15(Z) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, if so advised. Respondent has vehemently disputed the grounds and propositions advanced on behalf of Review Applicants in Review Application. Respondent has also specifically submitted that the investigation proceedings against eight other connected persons in the matter of Ojas Technochem Products Ltd. (OTPL) have since been initiated by order dated January 25, 2012 and the same are pending. Names of eight such persons are; (i) Nrupesh C. Shah, (ii) Falguni N. Shah, (iii) Pratima G. Jhaveri, (iv) Ankit G. Jhaveri, (v) Annal A. Jhaveri, (vi) Sheetal A. Jhaveri, (vii) Yogesh K. 4 Bhavnagari, and (viii) Saumil A. Bhavnagari. Thus, Respondent submits that the Review Applicants have not at all been discriminated in any manner whatsoever in passing disgorgement order in question."
6. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application is disposed of and the Registry is directed to issue a fresh copy of the order dated November 14, 2013 in Review Application Nos. 5 and 6 of 2012 to the parties concerned. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer Sd/-
Jog Singh Member 28.02.2014 Prepared & Compared By: PK