Ghanshyam Kamlesh Kacchawa vs Sebi

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision : 27.09.2022 Misc. Application No. 524 of 2022 And Misc. Application No. 525 of 2022 And Appeal No. 602 of 2022 Ghanshyam Kamlesh Kacchawa G/4/5, Abhinandan Apartments, Near Cross Garden, Bhayander (E), Thane - 401 101. ..... 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. Dinesh Prakash Guchiya, Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal has been filed against an order dated February 28, 2019 wherein the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 2 'AO') of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs for the violation of Regulations 3 and 4 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'PFUTP Regulations').

2. There is a delay of 1140 days in the filing of the appeal and accordingly an application for condonation of delay has been filed. A ground urged is that the impugned order was received by a family member of the appellant but the appellant was never intimated and consequently the delay. 3. In our view, this is neither a legal ground nor sufficient cause has been shown. There is an inordinate delay in the filing of the appeal. 4. 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. 3 5. 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 view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Madanlal vs. Shyamlal, [(2002) 1 SCC 535]. 6. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors, [(2010) 8 SCC 685], Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" 7. 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. 4 8. Further, we find that against the same order dated February 28, 2019, an appeal was filed by another noticee being Appeal No. 286 of 2021 Daulat Laxmilal Chandraliya vs. SEBI which was dismissed by an order of this Tribunal dated March 26, 2021. 9. Consequently, the delay application is dismissed on the ground of laches, as a result of which the appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

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 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 RAJALA Digitally by signed Technical Member 27.09.2022 KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H Date: 2022.10.03 PTM H NAIR 14:45:02 +05'30'