Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 268 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasoning here is confined to the condonation of delay, and the court's ground for condoning it rests on a rule of liberal construction in the interest of justice, applied to a delay where the appellant's default was not negligent. Under that approach, a Tribunal may condone a delay in filing an appeal where the explanation is plausible and the appellant is not at fault, even where the delay is substantial, and refusal would foreclose the appeal on the merits. A decision of the Delhi High Court relied upon by the respondent, which refused condonation where the litigant knew an appeal was required, is distinguished on the facts because the present appellant was not shown to be negligent.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date : 24.01.2019
Misc. Application No. 220 of 2018 And Appeal No. 268 of 2018
Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited ...Respondent
Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocate i/b Vidhi Partners for the Appellant.
Mr. Sameer Pandit, Advocate with Ms. Madhupreetha Elango, Advocate i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Respondent.
ORDER:
Misc. Application No. 220 of 2018:-
1. There is a delay of 252 days as reported by the learned counsel for
the appellant in filing the present appeal. This application for
condonation of delay has been opposed by the respondent. The learned
counsel for the appellant contended that the delay was on account of fact
that the lawyer initially was drafting a representation before the
Governing Board of the respondent. It was subsequently found that there
was no provision for filing such representation. It was further contended
that eventually the appellant changed their lawyer sometimes in
December and instructed the new advocate to prepare the appeal which
took some time and eventually the appeal was filed on April 21, 2018. In 2
this manner, the appellant has contended that satisfactory explanation has
been given which is bona fide and that the explanation is plausible and
therefore the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
2. The Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the
explanation given is not bona fide. It was stated that in the earlier round
of litigation, the impugned order was passed by respondent on December
13, 2014 against which an appeal was preferred by the appellant before
the Tribunal after 419 days. Consequently the fact that an appeal was
required to be filed was known to them. It was thus urged that the
contention that the advocate was at fault cannot be a ground to condone
the delay. In this regard the learned counsel for the respondent has relied
upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi dated May 18, 2017 in the
matter of Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. SCONE Exhibition Pvt. Ltd.
3. We have gone through this decision and find that the same is
distinguishable on facts. It is not a case where the appellant is negligent.
On the other hand, we find that considering the totality of the facts that
have been placed before us a liberal approach should be made for
condoning the delay. Refusal to condone the delay will result in the
foreclosure of this appeal. Accordingly, considering the decision of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom,
Perinadu Village vs. Bhargavi Amma (dead) by Lrs. And Others (2008)
8 Supreme Court Cases 321 we find that in the interest of justice, the
delay is liable to be condoned. We accordingly allow the Misc.
Application and condone the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.
20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) which shall be deposited by 3
the appellant before the Registrar, Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
within two weeks from today. Upon deposit, the appeal shall be listed for
admission and for final disposal on February 28, 2019.
3. Misc. Application is disposed of.
Appeal No. 268 of 2018:-
List on February 28, 2019 for admission and final disposal.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 24.01.2019 Prepared and compared by:msb
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