Penalty may be reduced based on parity with co-noticees despite significant delay in filing appeal.

The Appellant was alleged to have engaged in circular trading regarding the shares of M/s. K. Sera Sera Productions Limited in 2005.

An Adjudicating Officer (AO) of SEBI passed an order on August 8, 2018, imposing a penalty of ₹6 Lakhs.

The Appellant challenged this order in 2025—a delay of over six years—claiming non-receipt of the final order despite notifying SEBI of an address change.

SEBI contested the condonation of delay, noting that the Appellant had been appearing before a Special Court regarding the same violation since January 2020, proving prior knowledge of the matter.

1. Whether the delay of over six years in filing the appeal should be condoned given the Appellant's prior knowledge of the proceedings.

2. Whether the penalty of ₹6 Lakhs was disproportionate compared to penalties imposed on other noticees involved in the same scrip.

The court's jurisdiction was invoked under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, which governs appeals to the Tribunal.

The court applied the principle of parity in sentencing/adjudication, ensuring that penalties for similar violations (circular trading in the same scrip) are not "grossly disproportionate" between similarly situated noticees.

Additionally, the court exercised its discretionary power to condone delay where a meritorious case regarding the quantum of penalty exists, despite evidence of laches.

The Tribunal noted that while the Appellant’s excuse for the delay was weak—as he had been appearing in related criminal prosecution since 2020—the substantive merit regarding the penalty required intervention.

Evidence showed that seven other noticees involved in circular trading of the same stock received significantly lower penalties ranging from ₹50,000 to ₹2 Lakhs.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the Appellant was similarly situated, a ₹6 Lakh penalty was inconsistent with the treatment of others involved in the same scrip.

To provide a "quietus" to the long-standing matter, the Tribunal balanced the Appellant's delay against the need for equitable penalty distribution.

It held that while the Appellant was at fault for the delay, the penalty was disproportionately high.

The Tribunal reduced the penalty from ₹6 Lakhs to ₹1,50,000 (inclusive of interest), contingent upon the Appellant depositing the amount within four weeks.

The order was specifically marked as not to be treated as a precedent.