Balkrishna Kamalakar Tendulkar vs Sebi

1. The appellant has challenged the order dated May 16, 2018

whereby the demat account of the appellant was frozen. According

to the own case of the appellant, the impugned order was made

known to him in October 2019. There is a delay in the filing of the

appeal. According to the appellant, the delay is 92 days counting

from the last date of correspondence which was made on March 18,

2021.

2. In our view, the delay indicated by the appellant is patently

erroneous. The delay has to be counted from the date of the

impugned order, namely, May 16, 2018 and according to the registry

the delay works out to 1067 days. No steps whatsoever was taken by

the appellant to file an appeal immediately after knowing about the

impugned order. Merely because, the appellant chose to correspond 3

with the Stock Exchange will not extend the period of limitation. In

our view, the appellant has not taken proper steps to file an appeal

within the period of limitation.. Consequently, we are of the opinion

that there is an inordinate delay in the filing of the appeal. Sufficient

cause has not been shown and, therefore, the delay cannot be

condoned.

3. Further, the demat account was frozen on May 16, 2018

because the company was compulsorily delisted under the Securities

and Exchange Board of India (Delisting of Equity Shares)

Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'Delisting

Regulations'). The appellant admittedly is a promoter of that

company and as per Section 24(1) of the Delisting Regulations, the

appellant is restrained from accessing the securities market for a

period of 10 years, as the consequence of this debarment the demat

account is frozen.

4. It has also been stated that as per the Regulation 24(2) if the

value of the shares is NIL, in which case the demat account cannot be

frozen. However, in the instant case, the stock exchange has given a

positive value of Rs. 1/ per share which according to the appellant is

stated to be incorrect. This aspect cannot be dealt with in this appeal

as we stated this appeal was filed belatedly. 4

5. We accordingly dismiss the appeal on the ground of laches as

being heavily barred by limitation. The appeal is dismissed with the

observation that it will be open to the appellant to move an

appropriate application before the stock exchange with regard to

the valuation of the shares by giving appropriate evidence. If such an

application is filed, the stock exchange will deal with it

appropriately.

6. 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 01.07.2021 RAJALA Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI KSHMI HDate:

NAIR

PTM 2021.07.02

H NAIR 13:17:01 +05'30'