Inventure Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.7 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not condone an inordinate delay in filing an appeal where no satisfactory ground or explanation for the delay has been placed before it; in the absence of any plausible explanation, the application for condonation is dismissed and the appeal, which depends on it, falls with it. Where the impugned order has been in the appellant's knowledge and has been followed by a further order, the appellant must explain why it did not approach the Tribunal earlier against that further order; a failure to offer any plausible explanation for the delay in challenging the subsequent order is a sufficient ground to refuse to entertain the appeal at that belated stage.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 26.2.2019
Misc. Application No.6 of 2019 And Appeal No.7 of 2019
Inventure Finance Pvt. Ltd. Viraj Towers, 201, 2nd Floor, Near Landmark, Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093. ..... Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ...... Respondent
Mr. J.J. Bhatt, Advocate with Ms. Rinku Valanju, Advocate i/b. R.V. Legal for the Appellant.
Mr. Karan Bhosale, Advocate with Mr. Santanu M., Advocate i/b. Desai & Divanji for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
1.
The appellant is challenging the ex-parte ad-interim order dated
14th August, 2014, confirmatory order dated 31st March, 2015 as well
as order dated 3rd October, 2017 passed by the Whole Time Member
of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as
'SEBI'). The appellant has also challenged the show cause notice
dated 7th December, 2017. According to the appellant there is a delay
of 384 days which is incorrect in as much as the appellant has
challenged the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 14th August, 2014 and 2
consequently the delay is more than four years. For the aforesaid
purpose an application for condonation of delay No.6 of 2019 has been
filed.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant we do not
find any cogent or valid reason for condoning the inordinate delay in
filing of the present appeal. No satisfactory ground or explanation has
been given for condoning the delay.
3. We also find that by the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2017
the proceeding against the appellant was to continue and the
confirmatory order dated 31st March, 2015 would remain in force.
These orders are in the knowledge of the appellant. Pursuant to the
order of 3rd October, 2017 a show cause notice dated 7th December,
2017 has been issued. No explanation has been given as to why the
appellant could not approach earlier against the issuance of the show
cause notice dated 7th December, 2017. In the absence of any
plausible explanation being given we do not find any reason to
entertain the appeal at this belated stage. The application for
condonation of delay is devoid of any merit and is dismissed, as a
result, the appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member 26.2.2019 Prepared and compared by RHN
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