Bombay High Court
Pradeep KapoorversusSecurities and Exchange Board of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The summons was validly served; Rule 7 does not govern the investigation stage, and the Special Judge’s order stands.
Summary
The applicant, Vaishali Anil Tikam, sought discharge from SEBI Special Court proceedings, contending that the summons served under SEBI Rules was invalid because it was not delivered to him personally and the acknowledgment due (AD) card was produced after a 20‑year delay. SEBI argued that the summons was first served to the applicant’s wife and subsequently to the applicant at the same address via RPAD, with a signed AD card, and that Rule 7 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 1995 applies only to the inquiry and penalty stage, not to the investigation under Section 11 of the SEBI Act. The High Court examined the service details, the applicability of Rule 7, and the effect of the delayed AD card, concluding that the service complied with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court found no merit in the applicant’s challenge and upheld the Special Judge’s order rejecting the discharge application. The revision application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the summons served on the applicant complied with Rule 7 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 1995
- Whether the delay in producing the acknowledgment due card affects the validity of service
- Whether Rule 7 applies to the investigation stage under Section 11 of the SEBI Act
Legislation cited
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 — s. 11
- Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 1995 — s. 7
Subjects
- summons service
- SEBI Rules
- Rule 7
- Section 11
- investigation vs inquiry
- acknowledgment due card
- RPAD
- criminal revision
Judgment
5-REVN-12-2026 (CR) (1).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2026
VAISHALI
ANIL Pradeep Kapoor ...Applicant
TIKAM VERSUS
Securities and Exchange Board of India
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI and Anr. ...Respondents
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
2026.10.09
11:41:04 +0530 _________________________________________________________________
Mr. Tirthesh Jain i/b R.V. Legal, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. Anubha Rastogi, SPP a/w. Mr. Aditya Joshi, Advocates for Respondent
No.1
Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned counsel for
Respondent No.1 and learned APP for the State.
2. The challenge in this application is to the order passed by the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short 'SEBI') Special Judge,
Mumbai below Exhibit 17 whereby Learned Judge has rejected the
discharge application of the Applicant.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that
summons was not delivered to the Applicant by SEBI as per SEBI Rules.
There is delay in pursuing the complaint from the years 2004 to 2007.
Learned counsel further submitted that as summons was not served to the
Applicant in the required manner, the Acknowledgment Due Card (for
Page 1 of 5
5-REVN-12-2026 (CR) (1).doc
Tikam
short 'AD Card') was placed before the Trial Court after 20 years and the
Applicant should have been discharged from the SEBI Spl. Case No. 214 of
2015. But this fact has not been considered by the Learned Special Judge
and requested to allow the Application.
4. It is contention of learned SPP that the summons was served to
the wife of the Applicant and she had acknowledged it. Thereafter, second
summons was issued and it was served to the Applicant on the same
address and there was signature of recipient on the said AD Card. Learned
SPP further submitted that the SEBI Rules, 1995 are applicable to the
inquiry and not to the investigation. Learned SPP further submitted that
the complaint was pending since 2004 and process was issued in the year
2007, but SEBI has no role for delay as it was pending before the
concerned Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the Learned
Special Judge has passed well-reasoned order. No interference is required
in it and requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order
and documents produced on record. It appears from the record that first
summons was received by the wife of the applicant and then she issued a
letter to Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, SEBI issued another
summons on the same address through RPAD and AD Card is received by
the SEBI stating it was served. It is contention of learned counsel for the
Page 2 of 5
5-REVN-12-2026 (CR) (1).doc
Tikam
Applicant that there was no proper service of summons to the Applicant as
per Rule 7 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing
Penalties) Rules 1995. Rule 7 of the SEBI reads as under:
"Rule 7 of the SEBI (Adjudication Rules), 1995 clearly states that
any notice or order shall be delivered to the person or authorized
person or by sending it to a person through Registered Post
Acknowledgment Due. A copy of the relevant provision of the SEBI
(Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules,
1995 is provided below:
7. A notice of an order issued under these rules shall be
served on the person in the following manner, that is to say, -
(a) by delivering or tendering it to that person or his duly
authorized agent;
(b) by sending it to the person by fax or electronic mail
or courier or speed post with acknowledgment due or registered
post with acknowledgment due to the address of his place of
residence or his last known place of residence or the place where
he carried on, or last carried on, business or personally works, or
last worked, for gain: Provided that a notice sent by Fax shall bear
a note that the same is being sent by fax and in case the document
contains annexure, the number of pages being sent shall also be
mentioned: Provided further that a notice sent through electronic
mail shall be digitally signed by the competent authority and
bouncing of the electronic mail shall not constitute valid service;
(c) if it cannot be served under clause (a) or clause (b),
by affixing it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of
the premises in which that person resides or is known to have last
resided, or carried on business or personally works or last worked
for gain and that written report thereof should be witnessed by two
Page 3 of 5
5-REVN-12-2026 (CR) (1).doc
Tikam
persons; or
(d) if it cannot be affixed on the outer door as per clause (c), by
publishing the notice in at least two newspapers, one in an English
daily newspaper having nationwide circulation and another in a
newspaper having wide circulation published in the language of the
region where that person was last known to have resided or carried
on business or personally worked for gain."
This rule shows that it is applied to holding of inquiry and
imposing penalty. In the present case, firstly, summons was served to the
wife of the Applicant. Subsequent summons was served on the same
address through RPAD and AD Card is received by the SEBI stating that it
was served. The said AD card is produced on record. It is contention of
learned counsel for the Applicant that the said AD card is produced after
20 years. There is a reference about the service of summons through RPAD,
which is mentioned in the complaint. Though it is produced after 20 years,
it cannot dilute the effect of said AD card. Moreover, as observed earlier,
Section 7 would apply to the inquiry and the summons was issued as a part
of the investigation as stated under Section 11 of the SEBI Act. Hence, I do
not find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant
that no proper summons was served to the Applicant.
In view of above, the Learned Special Judge has passed well-
reasoned order and no interference is required in it and I pass following
order:
Page 4 of 5
5-REVN-12-2026 (CR) (1).doc
Tikam
ORDER
(i) Revision Application is rejected.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.