Jindal Cotex Limited & Ors. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 76 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condones a delay in filing an appeal where the appellants relied on the Supreme Court's suo motu orders extending limitation during the pandemic, and where the Tribunal considered that the interests of justice warrant condonation, conditional on payment of costs.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date: 19.01.2023
Misc. Application No. 1805 of 2022 And Misc. Application No. 1806 of 2022 And Appeal No. 76 of 2023
Jindal Cotex Limited & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent
Mr. P.N. Modi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kalpana Desai, Mr. Arnav Tandon, Advocates and Ms. Nikita Vijay i/b Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Corporate Professionals, Advisors and Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sarangarajan, Advocate i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Respondent.
ORDER:
1. Since the appeal has been taken up for consideration, the
urgency application is disposed of.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the
Adjudicating Officer ("AO" for convenience) of the Securities
and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for convenience) dated 2 January 23, 2020 wherein different quantum of penalties has
been imposed upon the appellants. There is a delay in the filing
of the appeal and accordingly an application for condonation of
delay has been filed.
3. This application for condonation of delay has been
vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. We find that according to the appellants they only came to
know of the impugned order on June 13, 2020 when the
gatekeeper of the premises informed them during the pandemic
period. The appellants have also relied upon the orders of the
Supreme Court in suo moto writ petition (civil) no(s). 3/2020
dated 23rd March, 2020, March 08, 2021, April 27, 2021 and
January 10, 2022. Eventually the appeal was filed before the
registry on this Tribunal on December 31, 2022.
5. The learned senior counsel contended that if the period as
per the Supreme Court order is excluded there is only a delay of
215 days in the filing of the appeal and for the reasons stated in
the application, the delay may be condoned.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
contended that on the same issue the Whole Time Member had 3 passed an order dated January 24, 2019 in which the appellants
were debarred from accessing the securities market for the
period of 5 years. This order was challenged before this
Tribunal in Appeal No. 376 of 2019 which was dismissed by
judgement dated February 05, 2020. The appellants were well
aware of the dismissal of the appeal on the finding of facts and
consequently chose not to file an appeal but now in view of the
several orders passed by this Tribunal in other appeals reducing
the penalty the appellants are now coming before this Tribunal
seeking a similar relief. It was also urged that there is an undue
delay in the filing of the appeal which should not be condoned.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in
view of the order of the Supreme Court of India, we are of the
opinion that in the larger interest of justice the delay in the filing
of the appeal should be condoned. We accordingly condone the
delay on payment of cost of Rs. 10 lakhs before the Registrar of
this Tribunal which shall be deposited by the appellants on or
before January 31, 2023.
8. List for admission on February 06, 2023.
9. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary
on behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to 4 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 Technical Member 19.01.2023 PRERNA Digitally by PRERNA signed
PK MANISH MANISH KHARE Date: 2023.01.20 KHARE 10:46:02 +05'30'
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