Geojit Financial Services Limited vs Sebi

Date of Decision: 17.05.2021

Misc. Application No. 398 of 2021 (Exemption to file certified copy) And Misc. Application No. 399 of 2021 (Delay application) And Appeal No. 336 of 2021

Geojit Financial Services Limited 34/659-P, Civil Line Road, Padivattom, Kochi, Kerala- 682 024 ...Appellant

Versus

1.

Multi Commodity Exchange of India Exchange Square, CTS No. 255, Suren Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 093

2. Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051 ...Respondents

Mr. Rajesh Nagory, Advocate with Ms. Sabeena Mahadik, Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi, Mr. Sagar Hate and Mr. Aayush Kothari, Advocates i/b Visesha Law Services for the Appellant.

Mr. Sameer Pandit, Advocate with Ms. Sarrah Khambati and Mr. Pranay Kamdar, Advocates i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh and Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocates i/b The Law Point for Respondent No. 2.

2

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

May 15, 2018 whereby penalty was imposed for violation of

open position limits. There is a delay of 1004 days in the filing

of the appeal and accordingly an application for condonation of

delay has been filed. The ground urged is, that the alleged open

limits violation happened on account of a technical glitch in the

computer system and this fact was immediately pointed out by

the appellant to the stock exchange and in this regard the

correspondence kept on going back and forth up to a year.

Ultimately, Appeal No 308 of 2019 was filed against one order

of the respondents dated March 22, 2019 which appeal was

dismissed as withdrawn by an order of this Tribunal dated

February 11, 2021. It was urged that the said appeal was filed

against a wrong order and consequently the present appeal has

been filed challenging the order of May 15, 2018.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we

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

If there was a technical glitch and the penalty was debited from 3

the accounts of the appellant the matter should have been

nipped in the bud and an appeal should have been filed at the

earliest but the appellant has approached the Tribunal after three

years which is admittedly belated. We are of the confirmed

opinion that the grounds urged in the present appeal is neither

bonafide nor sufficient. Sufficient cause has not been shown.

Further, the filing of an appeal against another order does not in

any way condone the inordinate delay in the filing of the present

appeal.

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 4

party. The same 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.

6. 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 find any legal or

adequate reasons to condone the delay.

7. For the reasons stated aforesaid, we do not find any

sufficient cause being shown to condone this inordinate delay.

The application for condonation of delay is rejected, as a result 5

of which the misc. application for exemption to file the certified

copy and appeal are also dismissed with no order as to costs.

8. 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 17.05.2021 RAJALA Digitally by signed

PK KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H

Date: 2021.05.20 H NAIR 16:02:13 +05'30'