SAT
Administrative and Public LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Failure to serve the show-cause notice renders the adjudication order violative of natural justice.

Mr. Jyotiranjan Panda vs SEBI

SATJUDGMENT: October 15, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Failure to serve the show-cause notice renders the adjudication order violative of natural justice.. Mr. Jyotiranjan Panda vs SEBI. SAT. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

SEBI found that Magnox Infraprojects Limited had raised ₹2.31 crore from 2,110 persons through redeemable preference shares in 2012–13, contrary to applicable company and securities laws.

Source reference: para. 1

The appellant, a director during part of the relevant period, was proceeded against by SEBI and an order dated 20 February 2018 directed him, among other things, to refund the money collected.

Source reference: paras. 3–6

He appealed, alleging that he had not been served with the show-cause notice (SCN) or the impugned order.

Source reference: paras. 7–10

SEBI relied on a speed-post acknowledgment sent to an address in its records.

Source reference: paras. 7–10

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

Source reference: paras. 7–10
02

Issues

1. Whether the appellant was served with the SCN and the impugned order in accordance with law

Source reference: paras. 12–15

2. Whether the impugned order should be set aside qua the appellant for want of service and consequent denial of an opportunity to defend

Source reference: paras. 8, 15–16
03

Law Applied

The Tribunal considered the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person affected by an adjudicatory order receive notice and an opportunity to defend.

Source reference: paras. 5–6

The proceedings arose under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 11A and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, and Section 73(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Section 27(2) of the SEBI Act; the earlier proceedings also concerned Sections 56, 60, 2(36) and 73 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Source reference: paras. 5–6

No precedent was cited.

Source reference: paras. 5–6
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal found no material establishing that the appellant had been served with either the SCN or the impugned order.

Source reference: paras. 13–14

The speed-post acknowledgment produced by SEBI showed only the appellant’s name and the general address “Odisha – 756 117”; its signature did not match the appellant’s signature in the appeal memorandum or on his PAN card.

Source reference: paras. 13–14

On that record, the Tribunal held that service had not been proved and that the appellant had been denied the notice and opportunity required by natural justice.

Source reference: para. 15
05

Holding

The Tribunal answered the service issue in the negative and allowed the appeal.

It set aside the 20 February 2018 order qua the appellant, directed him to appear before SEBI on 16 November 2026 without further notice, and required SEBI to provide a hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Source reference: paras. 15–16

All contentions were left open; there was no order as to costs.

Source reference: paras. 15–16
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 19922

SAT

Original Court PDF

Mr. Jyotiranjan PandavsSEBI

SAT · October 15, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment