Jitendra Kumar Pratihast vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 137 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may condone a delay in filing an appeal on payment of costs where the delay is attributable to the appellant's failure to cure registry objections within the stipulated period, and such inordinate delay is taken into account in deciding whether to condone it, subject to the imposition of costs as a condition of condonation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date : 15.03.2021
Misc. Application No. 221 of 2021 (Condonation of Delay) And Appeal No. 137 of 2021
Jitendra Kumar Pratihast ...Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent
Ms. Neha Sonawane, Advocate with Ms. Dhwani Shah, Advocate i/b Vis Legis Law Practice for the Appellant.
Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Advocate i/b ELP for the Respondent.
WITH Misc. Application No. 222 of 2021 (Condonation of Delay) And Appeal No. 138 of 2021
Jitendra Kumar Pratihast ...Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent
Ms. Neha Sonawane, Advocate with Ms. Dhwani Shah, Advocate i/b Vis Legis Law Practice for the Appellant.
Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Advocate i/b ELP for the Respondent. 2
ORDER:
1. Both the appeals raise the same issue and are being taken
up together. There is a delay of more than 100 days in the filing
of the appeal. Accordingly, an application for condonation of
delay has been filed. Apart from the delay we find that the
objections raised by the Registry were not complied within the
stipulated period and that the defects were only removed in
December, 2020. Considering the inordinate delay in the
removal of the defects we condone the delay subject to the
payment of costs of Rs. 20,000/- each in the two appeals which
shall be paid to the Registrar, Securities Appellant Tribunal
within four weeks from today.
2. Let a reply be filed by the respondent to the memo of
appeal within three weeks from today. Two weeks thereafter to
the appellant to file a rejoinder. List on May 3, 2021.
3. Parties are directed to take instructions from the Registrar
48 hours before the date fixed in order to find out as to whether
the matter would be taken up for hearing through video
conference or through physical hearing. 3
4. The present matter was heard through video conference
due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign
a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be
issued by the registry. In these circumstances, this order will be
digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench
and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally
signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a
digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 15.03.2021 RAJALA Digitally by signed
msb KSHMI RAJALAKSHMI NAIR H
Date: 2021.03.17 H NAIR 08:16:09 +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