Ashok Shah vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 245 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal must disclose a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay; the generalised assertions of diligent pursuit of the matter by legal advisors and the appellant's lack of funds do not constitute such cause where the delay is of the order of 660 days.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 13.08.2018
Misc. Application No. 210 of 2018 And Appeal No. 245 of 2018
Ashok Shah 2/2/B, Centre Point Flats, Panchwati, Ambawadi, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad- 380 006 ...Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051 ...Respondent
Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. Vidhi Jhawar, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sukhramani, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.
CORAM: Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per: Dr. C.K.G. Nair (Oral)
Misc. Application No. 210 of 2018 In Appeal No. 245 of 2018
1.
By this Misc. Application appellant seeks condonation of 660 days
delay in filing the appeal. This appeal is filed to challenge a common
order passed by the Whole Time Member ('WTM' for short) of
Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) on August 12,
2016.
2
2. Apart from stating that the appellant has been diligently pursuing
the matter with the legal advisors to prepare the appeal and non
availability of funds, no other ground is set out for condoning the
inordinate delay of 660 days. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said
that the delay on part of the legal advisors in filing appeal or non
availability of funds with the appellant for filing appeal can be said to be
reasonable ground for condoning the delay of 660 days.
3. It is relevant to note that Appeal No. 303 of 2016 and several other
appeals filed by various other appellants challenging the very same
common order of SEBI dated August 12, 2016 have been dismissed by
this Tribunal on June 28, 2018.
4. In any event, in this Misc. Application, since the appellant have
failed to make out a case for condoning 660 days delay, I reject the Misc.
Application.
5. In view of the rejection of the Misc. Application, appeal does not
survive and the same is also disposed of, accordingly, with no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 13.08.2018 Prepared & Compared By: PK
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