Antara Mukherjee vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.582 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A condonation application under the limitation provision may be rejected where the appellant shows no sufficient cause, adequate or legal reasons for the delay; the fact that a later decision of the Tribunal in a similar matter might favour the appellant does not by itself justify filing an appeal belatedly. The discretion to condone delay must be exercised judicially on the facts and circumstances of each case, and sufficient cause cannot be liberally construed where lack of bona fides is attributable to the party; delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds beyond the limits expressly permitted by statute, and where the statute so prescribes, the law of limitation is to be applied with full rigour even if it harshly affects a party.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision:13.9.2021
Misc. Application No.936 of 2021 And Appeal No.582 of 2021
Antara Mukherjee 2A, Chunapukur Lane, Kolkata-700012. ...Appellant
Versus
The Whole Time Member Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent
Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. K.C. Jacob, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Mr. Bhushan Shah, Mr. Chirag Shah, Mr. Rishab Jain and Ms. Daksha Kasekar, Advocates i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
The present appeal has been filed against the order
of the Whole Time Member dated 16th January, 2018 2
whereby the appellant alongwith other notices were
directed to refund the monies that was collected by the
Company.
2. There is a delay of 1236 days in the filing of the
appeal and accordingly an application for condonation
of delay has been filed. The ground urged is, that even
though the impugned order was served upon the
appellant on 1st February, 2018 the appellant after due
consultation with the advocates was advised not to file
the appeal. However, in view of recent judgment of
this Tribunal dated 9th April, 2019 in the case of
Sayanti Sen, in Appeal no.163 of 2018, the present
appeal has been filed claiming parity.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
we do not find any sufficient cause made out for
condoning the inordinate delay. The mere fact that
another decision has come which might favour the
appellant does not entitle her to file the appeal
belatedly.
3
4. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 the Supreme
Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has
to be exercised judicially based on facts and
circumstances of each case and that sufficient cause
cannot be given a liberal interpretation if lack of
bonafide is attributed to a party. The Supreme Court
further held that delay cannot be condoned on
equitable ground beyond the limits permitted expressly
by statute.
5. The Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao and Ors.
(supra) held that the expression "sufficient cause"
should receive a liberal construction so as to advance
substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or
want of bonafide is imputable to a party. The same
view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Madanlal
vs. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 SCC 535.
6. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors,
(2010) 8 SCC 685 Supreme Court held that the 4
expression "sufficient cause" means the presence of
legal and adequate reasons. The decisions cited by the
learned counsel for the appellant are of no avail and, in
any case, not applicable in the present circumstance of
the case.
7. This Tribunal is possessed with the exercise of
judicial discretion in condoning the delay if sufficient
or adequate reason is given. It is also a settled
proposition of law that the law of limitation may
harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied
with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The
court has no power to extend the period of limitation
on equitable grounds as held by the Supreme Court in
Basawaraj and Anr. (supra). In the instant case we do
not find any legal or adequate reasons to condone the
delay.
8. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the application for
condonation of delay is rejected as a result of which
the appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs. 5
9. The present matter was heard through video
conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it
is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a
certified copy of this order could be issued by the
registry. In these circumstances, this order will be
digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of
the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act
on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will
act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax
and/or email.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member RAJALA Digitally signed
13.9.2021 by
KSHMI RAJALAKSHMI NAIR H
RHN Date: 2021.09.14 H NAIR 16:40:20 +05'30'
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free