Ashok Bhagat vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 22.09.2017

Misc. Application No. 109 of 2016 And Appeal No. 150 of 2016

Ashok Bhagat H-19, Ramaji Gupta Chawl, Sakharam Bava Patil Marg, (Gazadhar Band), Santacruz, ...Appellant Mumbai - 400 054.

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ...Respondent Mumbai - 400 051.

Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate with Mr. Ashok Bhagat, Appellant in person i/b Amit R. Dadheech & Associates for the Appellant.

Mr. Aditya Chitale, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sukhramani and Ms. Vidhi Jhawar, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per : Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member (Oral)

1.

This appeal with Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of

delay in filing the appeal is preferred by the appellant to challenge the order

passed by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) of the Securities and

Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) on January 1, 2013. By the said

order a consolidated penalty of Rs. 82 Lakh has been imposed on the

appellant under Sections 15HA, 15H(ii) and 15A(b) of the Securities and

Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 for the violation of Regulations 3(a),

4(1), 4(2)(a) and (e) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India 2

(Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities

Market) Regulations, 2003 and Regulation 10, Regulation 7(1) read with

Regulation 7(2) of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers)

Regulations, 1997 and Regulation 13(1) and Regulation 13(3) read with

Regulation 13(5) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations,

1992.

2. Shri. Aditya Chitale, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent objected to the Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation

of delay of 3 years 1 month and 26 days in filing the appeal stating that no

credible reason has been given by the applicant for the delay and the appeal

is filed belatedly only with the purpose of delaying the prosecution

proceedings initiated by SEBI against the appellant.

3. Shri. Prakash Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional; it

happened because the appellant became traumatized and gloomy after

receiving the impugned order; he took some time in comprehending the

impugned order; professional help was not forthcoming etc. Learned

Counsel for the appellant also cited the following orders in support of

seeking condonation of delay:-

(a) Order dated February 9, 2016 passed by this Tribunal in the

matter of Sicorp Finlease Ltd. & Ors. vs Securities and

Exchange Board of India (Review Application No. 6 of 2015

& Misc. Application No. 320 of 2015 in Misc. Application

No. 62 of 2015 in Appeal No. 96 of 2015);

(b) Order dated March 7, 2017 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras in the case of M/s. United Christmas 3

Celebration Committee Charitable Trust vs. The Income Tax

Officer (Tax Case Appeal No. 886 of 2016)

4. We do not find any merit in the submissions made by the Learned

Counsel for the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the appellant received

the impugned order dated January 1, 2013 on January 4, 2013. The reasons

furnished by the appellant that he became traumatized and gloomy is not a

sufficient ground for justifying the delay of more than 3 years. The

decisions relied on by Counsel for the appellant have no bearing on the facts

of present case, because, question of condoning the delay has to be seen in

the fact of each case independently. In the present case, it is seen that the

appellant is not a novice either to the stock market or to this Tribunal. As the

reasons given for the delay in filing the appeal cannot be said to be bonafide

reasons and in any event, are not sufficient reasons for condoning the delay,

we see no reason to condone the delay.

5. Accordingly we see no merit in the Miscellaneous Application for

condoning the delay of 3 years 1 month and 26 days in filing this appeal.

6. In the result, the Misc. Application is dismissed with no order as to

costs. Consequently, the appeal becomes infructuous and is also disposed of

accordingly. [*]Appellant is directed to pay penalty as per order passed by

the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 22.09.2017 Prepared and compared by:

msb

* Amended as per order dated October 11, 2017