Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Hans Homes Pvt. Ltd vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal8 January 2025

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal declined to condone a delay of 427 days in filing an appeal, holding that the appellant's allegation of negligence on the part of its authorised representative in failing to file the appeal in time did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and that the application for condonation therefore lacked merit, so that the appeal stood dismissed as time-barred.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ATMUMBAIDATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025CORAM : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding OfficerMs. Meera Swarup, Technical MemberDr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical MemberAppeal No. 725 of 2024AndMisc. Application No. 1272 of 2024AndMisc. Application No. 1273 of 2024Hans Homes Pvt. Ltd.B-219, Basement Derawal Nagar,North, Delhi - 110009. .... AppellantBy Mr. Ram Awatar Dhoot, Advocate i/b R. A Dhot & Co. for theAppellant.And

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

By Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Yadav , Mr. Abhay Chauhan, Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF SEBI ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED AUGUST 29, 2023 (EX-A) PASSED BY AO, SEBI.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025, THIS TRIBUNAL PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Per : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral)

We have heard Mr. Ram Awatar Dhoot, authorized

representative for the appellant and Mr. Manish Chhangani, learned

advocate for the respondent, SEBI.

2. There is a delay of 427 days in filing of this appeal. In support

of the plea for condonation of delay, it is stated thus:

"5. All the papers for filing of SAT Appeal were given to Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot on 31st December 2023. He could not file SAT Appeal in time. For this act of negligence, Appellant cannot be punished."

3 3. The Authorized representative for the appellant submitted

that for his mistake, the appellant cannot be made to suffer. We are

unable to persuade ourselves to accept the said submission. We find

no merit in the application for condonation of delay. Hence, the

prayer for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal

stands dismissed.

4. Pending interlocutory application(s) stand disposed of.

Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer

Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member

Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 08.01.2025 MRS PRAMILA Digitally signed by MRS PRAMILA Date: 2025.01.09 17:12:05 +05'30'

PTM

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free