Debdas Chatterjee vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 20.01.2023

Misc. Application No. 1715 of 2022 In Appeal No. 846 of 2022

Debdas Chatterjee 12, Mall Road, 3rd Floor, Swapnaneer Appartment, Dumdum, ..... Applicant Kolkata - 700080, West Bengal. (Org. 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. Triptimoy Talukder, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocate with Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Ms. Shefali Shankar, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)

1.

Cause shown is sufficient. The restoration application is

allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number. 2

2. The appeal has been filed against the order dated February 23,

2016 passed by the Whole Time Member (hereinafter referred to as

'WTM') of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter

referred to as 'SEBI'). There is a delay of 2242 days in the filing of

the appeal. We find that the impugned order was duly served but the

appellant took no steps to file an appeal. It was stated that the

appellant was unwell. On account of his ill-health, he could not file

an appeal within the stipulated period. No proof has been filed with

regard to his illness and health issue. In view of the inordinate delay,

we do not find any sufficient cause shown to condone this delay.

3. 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.

4. 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 3

view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Madanlal vs.

Shyamlal, [(2002) 1 SCC 535].

5. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors, [(2010) 8

SCC 685], Supreme Court held that the 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.

8. 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.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed on account

of undue delay.

10. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on

behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on 4

the digitally signed copy of this order. Certified copy of this order is

also available from the Registry on payment of usual charges.

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member 20.01.2023 PRAMILA Digitally signed by PRAMILA TANAJI

PTM TANAJI MISAL Date: 2023.01.20 MISAL 17:20:51 +05'30'