BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision: 30.12.2019
Appeal No.557 of 2019
Vipul Mohan Joshi
House No.41, Dattani Apartment,
5/B, Shivaji Road, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai – 400067.

…. Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A,
G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051.

… Respondent
Mr. Vikas Bengani, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocate i/b. ELP for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
30th August, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Officer
imposing a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs for violation of Regulations
3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(2)(d) and (e) of the Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and
2
Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003.
2.

From a perusal of para 15 of the impugned order we
find that proceedings were initiated against the appellant for
the alleged fraudulent dealings in the shares of Shreekrishna
Biotech Limited. For the said fraudulent dealing proceedings
under Section 11B was initiated by the Whole Time Member
(WTM) who passed an order dated 31st January, 2019
restraining the appellant from accessing the securities market
for a period of three years. For the same fraudulent dealings
and for the same investigation period the Adjudication
proceedings were also initiated under Section 15I and on the
same charges the impugned order was passed.
3.

The appellant had earlier filed an Appeal no.105 of
2019 against the order of the WTM dated 31 st January, 2019
which order was set aside and the appeal of the appellant was
allowed by our judgement dated 7th November, 2019. No
further appeal has been filed by the respondent before the
superior forum till date.
4.

The learned counsel for the respondent further admits
that the issue is the same which was dealt by the WTM.
Since we have allowed the appeal of the appellant against the
3
order of the WTM and the issue involved is the same we do
not see any reason for continuation of the impugned order
and consequently with the consent of the parties the appeal is
being decided at the admission stage itself without calling for
any affidavit as no factual controversy is involved.
5.

In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
30th August, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Officer in so
far as it relates to the appellant is concerned is quashed. The
appeal is allowed.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Justice M.T. Joshi
Judicial Member
30.12.2019
Prepared and compared by
RHN