Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Balbhadra Trading Private Limited vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal22 May 2024

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal condoned an 836-day delay in filing the appeal on payment of costs, reasoning that the appellant's wish to avail a settlement scheme recently announced by the regulator was a sufficient ground for indulgence, since no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending once the regulator had undertaken to consider such cases under the scheme. Where the regulator has undertaken, in the context of a settlement scheme, to consider the appellant's case under that scheme if a claim is filed in time, the pendency of an appeal serves no purpose, and the appeal may be dismissed as disposed of without adjudication on its merits.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision : 22.05.2024Misc. Application No. 653 of 2024AndMisc. Application No. 654 of 2024AndMisc. Application No. 655 of 2024AndAppeal No. 343 of 2024

Balbhadra Trading Private Limited 4, Fairlie Place, 1st Floor, Room No. 102, Kolkata - 700 001. ..... 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. Kushal Shah, CA with Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate i/b Prakash Shah & Associates for the Appellant.

Mr. Manish Chhangani with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent - SEBI.

CORAM : Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member

Per : Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral)

There is a delay of 836 days in the filing of the appeal. 2

2. Urgency application has worked for itself and it

accordingly disposed of. Exemption application is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that SEBI has

come out with the Settlement Scheme, 2024 and the appellant

desires to avail the same. With regard to delay in filing this

appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

same may be allowed by imposing reasonable costs and on

instructions, submitted that appellant is prepared to pay a cost

of Rs. 25,000/-. Keeping in view the fact that SEBI has come

out with a settlement scheme, we find it just and reasonable to

condone the delay subject to payment of said cost to the

SEBI. In the circumstances, application for condonation of

delay is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- as costs to

SEBI. Appellant has approached this Tribunal to avail the

settlement scheme. In similar cases, SEBI has undertaken to

consider cases under the settlement scheme. Hence, no

purpose would be served by keeping this appeal pending.

Shri Manish Chhangani, Counsel for SEBI submits that

notwithstanding dismissal of this appeal, SEBI shall consider

appellant's case under Settlement Scheme if it is filed in time.

His submission is placed on record.

3

4. In the result, Misc. Application for condonation of delay

is allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/-. Appeal is

dismissed. SEBI shall consider the appellant's case under the

Settlement Scheme if claim is filed in time. Appeal is

disposed of.

Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer

Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member

Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 22.05.2024 MADHUKAR SHAMRAO Digitally signed by MADHUKAR

msb SHAMRAO BHALBAR Date: 2024.05.24 15:14:40 +05'30'

BHALBAR

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