Devendra Suresh Gupta vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 05.12.2019

Misc. Application No. 454 of 2019 And Appeal No. 367 of 2019

Devendra Suresh Gupta Ramdas Niwas, Room No. 1, Chimatpada, Marol Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400 059. ..... 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. Vikas Bengani, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocate i/b ELP for the Respondent.

CORAM : Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per : Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member (Oral)

1.

Heard the both sides. By the present Misc. Application, the

applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 201 days in filing the

appeal.

2

2. The reasons forwarded in the application is that while the

present applicant is Devendra Suresh Gupta, the impugned order was

received at his house by his mother in the envelope in which the

name was shown as Suresh Devendra Gupta. The applicant was not

aware of the passing of the impugned order. Thereafter, the

applicant himself vide letters dated February 11, 2019, February 18,

2019 and March 8, 2019 applied for the certified copy of the

impugned order. The said copy of the impugned order was delivered

to him on March 14, 2019. For these reasons, the applicant wants the

delay be condoned and appeal be admitted.

3. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent -

Securities and Exchange Board of India that the copy was served

upon the appellant by an email also. It was further submitted that it

is not the case of the applicant that the hard copy was not served at

his address. As per his own submission, the said copy was received

by his mother and the name on the copy of the impugned order is

correct one. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellant is merely

making excuses of the clerical mistake occurred in the name of the

appellant shown on the envelope in the wrong manner.

4. Upon hearing both the sides, we are of the opinion that cause

shown is not sufficient and is not justified. It is to be noted that the 3

copy of the order was duly delivered at the address of the applicant

and it was admittedly received by the applicant's mother. Merely

because some clerical mistake in the name of the applicant on the

envelop had occurred no excuse can be taken as the acceptance of the

delivery of the mother of the appellant and handing over to the same

applicant is established. Even otherwise, the condonation application

was filed by the applicant in the Tribunal on May 14, 2019 i.e. after

two months of the delivery of the second copy of the impugned

order.

5. Considering the facts on record, we do not find any justification

in condoning the delay. The Misc. application is hereby dismissed

and, accordingly, the appeal is also disposed of.

Sd/-

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

Sd/-

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 05.12.2019 Prepared & Compared by PTM