Induram Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 207 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A delay of 660 days in filing an appeal cannot be condoned on the bare grounds that the appellants were diligently pursuing the matter with their legal advisors and lacked funds, since such grounds do not constitute reasonable cause for a delay of that magnitude.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI DATE : 29.06.2018
Misc. Application No. 172 of 2018 And Appeal No. 207 of 2018
Induram Developers Pvt. Ltd. 430, Sanjay Tower, Ambawadi Road, Ahmedabad - 380 009. ..... Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent
With Misc. Application No. 173 of 2018 And Appeal No. 208 of 2018
Ms. Meeta Bipin Kumar Shah 1/1, Nupur Apartment, Maninagar, Ahmedabad - 380 008. ..... Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent
None for the Appellants. Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sukhramani, Ms. Vidhi Jhawar, Mr. Nikhil Ratti Kapoor, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral)
Misc. Application No. 172 of 2018 in Appeal no. 207 of 2018 &
Misc. Application No. 173 of 2018 in Appeal no. 208 of 2018 : 2
1.
By these two misc. applications appellants seek condonation of 660 days
delay in filing the two appeals. Both appeals are filed to challenge common
order passed by the Whole Time Member ('WTM' for short) of Securities and
Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) on August 12, 2016.
2. Apart from stating that the appellants were diligently perusing the matter
with their legal advisors to prepare the appeal and non availability of funds, no
other ground is set out for condoning the inordinate delay of 660 days. By no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that the delay on part of the legal advisors
in filing appeals or non availability of funds with the appellants for filing
appeals can be said to be reasonable ground for condoning the delay of 660
days.
3. It is relevant to note that Appeal No. 303 of 2016 and several other
appeals filed by various other appellants challenging the very same common
order of SEBI dated August 12, 2016 have been dismissed by this Tribunal on
June 28, 2018.
4. In any event, in these two misc. applications, since the appellants have
failed to make out a case for condoning 660 days delay, we reject both the misc.
applications.
5. In view of the rejection of the Misc. applications, both appeals do not
survive and they are also disposed of, accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member 29.06.2018 Prepared & Compared by 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