K. A. Gunderia & Co. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 417 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal reasoned as follows. Where an appellant seeks condonation of a delay, sufficient cause must be shown by a plausible explanation covering the whole period of delay, not merely the initial period. A claim that the appellant's counsel was incapacitated by surgery does not account for the delay where the appeal could have been filed after the incapacity ended, and where the incapacitation is not established on the record as having continued for the entire period. Further, where the appeal is later filed through a different counsel, the earlier counsel's incapacity cannot be relied upon to explain the delay after that substitution. On these grounds, an application for condonation of delay that lacks a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay is rejected, and the appeal, and any connected application for stay, falls with it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 04.10.2019
Misc. Application No. 494 of 2019 And Misc. Application No. 495 of 2019 And Appeal No. 417 of 2019
K. A. Gunderia & Co. Office No. 1011, 10th Floor, Stock Exchange Towers, Dalal Street, Fort Mumbai- 400 023 ...Appellant Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 ...Respondent
Mr. Abdul Wahab A. H. Mukri, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Chirag Bhavsar, Advocate i/b MDP & Partners for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
1.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
May 22, 2018 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of
India imposing a penalty of ` 10,00,000/-. There is a delay of
420 days in filing the appeal. It has been stated that the
impugned order dated May 22, 2018 was served upon the
appellant on May 28, 2018 and thereafter he instructed his 2
Advocate Shri. Suresh J. Purohit on May 28, 2018 to file the
appeal. It was further stated that the said Advocate underwent a
bypass surgery on Jun 06, 2018 and consequently the delay in
filing the appeal.
2. In our opinion, sufficient cause has not been shown
nothing has been stated as to why the appeal could not be
preferred after June 2018. The Advocate underwent a bypass
surgery in June 2018 and the appeal was filed on 30.08.2019.
There is nothing on record to support that he was confined to
bed for the entire period and could not carry on his work.
Further, the appeal has now been preferred by another
Advocate. Consequently, we find that there is no plausible
explanation for this inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The
Misc. Application No. 494 of 2019 for condoning the delay is
misconceived and is rejected as a result of which, the Appeal
and the Misc. Application No. 495 of 2019 for stay is also
dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member Sd/-
Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 04.10.2019 Prepared & Compared By: PK
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