Prateek Kumar Vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India

Securities Appellate Tribunal Mumbai 10 Nov 2021 Appeal No. 517 Of 2021 (2021) 11 SEBI CK 0017
Bench: Division Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Appeal No. 517 Of 2021

Hon'ble Bench

Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer; M. T. Joshi, J

Advocates

V.M. Singh, Aditya Bhansali, Suyash Bhandari, Nirali Sunil Mehta, Pradeep Sancheti, Mihir Mody, Arnav Misra, Mayur Jaisingh, K. Ashar

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. The appellant has challenged the order / notice dated June 10, 2021 issued by the Adjudicating Officer (‘AO’ for short) of SEBIÂ

fixing a date for hearing in the matter and denying the rights to the appellant for examination / supply of certain documents and

cross-examination of witnesses. On our query as to whether the appeal is maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court dated October 6,

2021 passed in the matter of PACL Limited we find that the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 hadÂ

constituted a Committee headed by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha to look into all disputes related to PACL Limited. The order also

indicates that aggrieved parties may file their objections before a former District Judge Mr. R.S. Virk who in turn will submit a report to the Supreme

Court and accordingly the aggrieved person will have a remedy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2. The question before us is, if the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the Committee headed by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha to

decide all matters relating to PACL Limited then is it open to the AO of SEBI to initiate proceedings in relation to matter connected directly or

indirectly to PACL Limited. The limited reply filed by the respondent does not indicate with clarity as to whether any specific directions were issued

by the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee directing the AO to initiate proceedings. Consequently, we adjourn the proceedings and direct the

respondent to file a better reply within two weeks from today. List on December 9, 2021.

3. Parties are directed to take instructions from the Registrar 48 hours before the date fixed in order to find out as to whether the matter would be

taken up for hearing through video conference or through physical hearing.

4. The present matter was heard through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a

certified copy of this order could be issued by the registry. In these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf

of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a digitally signed

copy sent by fax and/or email.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More