Skip to main content

Distinction between a continuing offence and a repeat offence

In Adjudicating Officer Vs Bhavesh Pabari, the Supreme Court with reference to a matter with the SEBI, has explained the  a continuing offence and a repeat offence. The continuing offence is a one which is of a continuous nature as distinguished from one which is committed once and for all. The term “continuing offence” was explained and elucidated by giving several illustrations in State of Bihar vs. Deokaran Nenshi & Ors.. In case of continuing offence, the liability continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion when disobedience or non­compliance occurs and reoccurs, there is an offence committed. Continuing offence constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion it occurs.

In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh, continuing offence or default in service law was explained as a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury. A recurring or successive wrong, on the other hand, are those which occur periodically with each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. We have made reference to this legal position in view of clause (c) of Section 15­J of the SEBI Act which refers to repetitive nature of default and not a continuing default. The word “repetitive” as used therein would refer to a recurring or successive default. This factum has to be taken into consideration while deciding upon the quantum of penalty. This dictum, however, does not mean that factum of continuing default is not a relevant factor, as we have held that clauses (a) to (c) in Section 15­J of the SEBI Act are merely illustrative and are not the only grounds/factors which can be taken into consideration while determining the quantum of penalty.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Winding-Up Petition Can’t Be Used If Bona Fide Payment Disputes Pending

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of M/s Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd vs  M/s Shree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd, has held that a winding-up petition has serious  ramifications on the financial standing of a company and cannot be used in cases  where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed by one party to the  other and in such cases the company court should relegate the matter either to the  civil court or arbitral tribunal. In this case, Uttam Industrial Ltd entered into a contract with Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd  to provide machinery and equipment for a sugar plant. Article referred:  http://www.livelaw.in/remedy-winding-petition-cant-relied-upon-bona-fide-payment-disputes-karnataka-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

A liquidator must pay GST on sale of assets of a defunct company

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling has ruled that a National Company Law Tribunal appointed liquidator must have the GST registration till all liabilities cease to exist and that the liquidator must pay goods and services tax (GST) on sale of assets of a defunct company under liquidation, as the sale is effectively supply of goods. 
Post a Comment
Read more