BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

Date of Decision : 18.12.2013

Appeal No. 166 of 2013

1. Mr. Anurag Agarwal
2. Paksh Developers Pvt. Ltd.
   Through its authorized Director
   Mr. Anurag Agarwal.

Both having Office at:
302, Pushpak Commercial Complex,
Prahladnagar, Vijalpur,
Anandnagar, Ahmedabad 380 051, Gujarat.

Appellants

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.

      Respondent  

Mr. P.N. Modi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neville Lashkari, Advocate for
Appellants.

Mr. Chirag Balsara, Advocate with Mr. Pratham Masurekar, Advocate for
Respondent.

WITH

Appeal No. 161 of 2013
Shri A bhishek Soni
Resi. at: 121, Sardar Patel Colony,
Near Sardar Statue, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India

SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C – 4A, G Block,

Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400 051.

2

WITH

Appeal No. 162 of 2013

Shri Harshad Panchal
Resi. at: C-4, Kavita Society,
Nr. Vakhariya Nagar, Kalol,
382 721 Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

WITH

Appeal No. 163 of 2013

Radhe Krishna Broking
A partnership firm through partner:
Mr. Hemang S Shah
Resi. at: A/1/4, Prasiddha Apartment,
Satellite, Ahmedabad

WITH

3

Appeal No. 164 of 2013

Mr. Hemang S Shah
Resi. at: A/1/4, Prasiddha Apartment,
Satellite, Ahmedabad –

…App
WITH

Appeal No. 165 of 2013

Mr. Umesh Patel
Resti. at: B/87, C P Nagar,
Part –
–

…App

4

WITH

Appeal No. 167 of 2013

Mrs. Sonal Patel
Resti. at: B/87, C P Nagar,
Part –
–

…App
…
WITH

Appeal No. 168 of 2013

Shri Dhaval Soni
Resi. at: 121, Sardar Patel Colony,
Near Sardar Statue, Naranpura,
Ahmedabad

CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer
Jog Singh, Member
A.S. Lamba, Member

Per : J.P. Devadhar (Oral)

5

1. In all these appeals appellants have challenged two ex parte

adjudication orders both dated June 5, 2013.

2. Grievance of appellants is that advocate who was to appear for

appellants could not appear before Adjudicating Officer on specified day as

his wife was hospitalized and accordingly adjournment was sought, but

rejecting application for adjournment impugned ex parte order has been

passed on the ground that no evidence has been produced.

3. In view of evidence to the above effect produced before us, counsel

for respondent on instruction agrees for setting aside the ex parte order with

liberty to pass fresh order on merits.

4. Accordingly, by consent impugned orders both dated June 5, 2013

are set aside and all matters are restored to the file of Adjudicating Officer

for passing fresh order on merits and in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for respondent states that inspection of documents

set out in appellant’s advocate letter dated April 4, 2013 at Page No. 161

(Appeal No. 166 of 2013) would be given within a period of 4 weeks from

today.

6. Learned counsel for appellants state that appellants would file

additional documents before Adjudicating Officer, if any, within a period of

one week from the date of respondent giving inspection of documents and

co-operate in adjudication proceedings inter-alia by not seeking any

adjournment.

6

7. Above statement of learned counsel for appellants and respondent is

accepted.

8. Adjudicating Officer is directed to pass fresh order on merits as

expeditiously as possible after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

appellants.

9. All appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Sd/- Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer Sd/-
   Jog Singh
   Member Sd/- A.S. Lamba Member
   18.12.2013
   Prepared and compared by:
   msb