D. a. Gadgil v. SEBI
Case brief
What is this about?
The Securities Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal challenging an order directing the appellant to be ineligible for any public position in capital markets for three years. The Tribunal held that the order was passed without affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration after issuing a show cause notice.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order rendering the appellant ineligible for public positions was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration after affording a fair opportunity of being heard.
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
Appeal No. 3/2000
In the matter of:
Shri D.A.Gadgil Appellant Vs.
SEBI & Others Respondent No.1 Shri D.R.Mehta, Chairman, SEBI Respondent No.2 Shri R.K.Kakkar, Division Chief, SEBI Respondent No.3 Shriram Asset Management Co.Ltd., Respondent No.4
APPEARANCE
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti Counsel Mr. P. Colabawala Counsel (Instructed Bhaishankar Kanga & Girdharlal Mumbai) for Appellant Shri S.V.Krishnamohan Division Chief, SEBI Mr. Vijayakrishnan Legal officer, SEBI for Respondents 1 to 3
ORDER
In the present appeal, the Appellant has challenged a part of the order captioned "Order under section 11 and 11B of SEBI Act, 1992, in the case of Shriram Assets Management Company Limited in respect to transactions in the shares of Videocon International Limited", dated 1st February, 2000, issued by Respondent No.2 as Chairman of the Securities & Exchange Board of India, whereby the Appellant has been rendered ineligible " to hold any public position in any capital market related public institution for a further period of 3 years". The prayer in the appeal is to quash and set aside the impugned order and or in the alternative to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to withdraw the order so far as it concerns the Appellant.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order rendering an individual ineligible to hold a public position in a capital market institution, passed without a show cause notice to the individual, violates the principles of natural justice under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution?
Whether the failure to issue a show cause notice to the appellant, who was the Managing Director of the company under inquiry, constitutes a violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Shri D.A. Gadgil
- respondent
SEBI
- respondent
Shri D.R. Mehta
- respondent
Shri R.K. Kakkar
- respondent
Shriram Asset Management Co. Ltd.
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court