Kaashyap Technologies Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 805 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Condonation of delay under a statutory limitation period is a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised only where "sufficient cause" is shown by legal and adequate reasons; where lack of bona fides or inaction is attributable to the party seeking condonation, sufficient cause is not made out and the expression cannot be liberally construed. A statutory period of limitation may not be extended on equitable grounds beyond the limits expressly permitted by the statute; the law of limitation, though it may bear harshly on a party, is to be applied with full rigour where the statute so prescribes. The mere passage of a separate order by another authority (here, the Adjudicating Officer's penalty order) does not furnish a valid ground for a party who was duly served with the impugned order and took no steps to challenge it to file an appeal out of time and seek condonation of an inordinate delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 10.11.2022 Misc. Application No. 1216 of 2022 And Appeal No. 805 of 2022 1. Kaashyap Technologies Ltd. 33/8, II Floor, B. R. Complex, C.P. Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 2. Shri A. Venkatramani A5, Madrasapattinam No. 95, Karpagam Avenue, 4th Street, Sai Nagar, R. A. Puram,Chennai- 600 028 3. Shri A. Ganesan Flat No. 27, 3rd Floor, Prayad Apartments, New No. 15, Old No. 8 First Main Road, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020 4. Shri R. Dakshinamurthy 18-A, Kannappa Nagar Extn., Thiruvanmiyur A Chennai- 600 041 5. Shri A Sivakumaran Plot 13, Venkateswara Garden, Kottivakkam, Chennai- 600 041 6. Shri R. Gopalan 476, BEML Layout, 1st Floor, 8th Main, Basaveswar Nagar, 3rd Stage, 4th Block, Bangalore ...Appellants 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. Jitendra Sharda, Advocate for Appellant No. 1 Mr. Arunagiri Velu, Advocate for Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 2 Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh, Advocates i/b.
K Ashar & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. The appellant has challenged the order dated April 12, 2019 passed by the Whole Time Member ("WTM" for convenience) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for convenience) debarring the appellants from accessing the securities market for a period of three years. 2. There is a delay of 1211 days in the filing of the appeal. The ground urged is, that the company had become sick. Further the company and the directors took steps to file an appeal only when the Adjudicating Officer had passed a separate order imposing penalty by an order dated July 29, 2022. 3. In our view, we find that the appellants were duly served with the order of the WTM. No steps were taken by the appellants to challenge the order. Merely because another order has been passed by the AO does not entitle the appellants to file the appeal and seek condonation of delay. In our opinion, there 3 has been an inordinate delay. No valid ground has been made for condonation of delay.
4. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 the Supreme Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judicially based on facts and circumstances of each case and that sufficient cause cannot be given a liberal interpretation if lack of bonafide is attributed to a party. The Supreme Court further held that delay cannot be condoned on equitable ground beyond the limits permitted expressly by statute. 5. The Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao and Ors. (supra) held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a party. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Madanlal vs. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 SCC 535. 6. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors, (2010) 8 SCC 685 Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" means the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no avail and, in any case, not applicable in the present circumstance of the case.
7. This Tribunal is possessed with the exercise of judicial discretion in condoning the delay if sufficient or adequate reason is given. It is also a settled proposition of law that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds as held by the Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Anr. (supra). In the instant case we do not find any legal or adequate reasons to condone the delay. 8. The application for condoning the delay is rejected, as a result of which the appeal is also dismissed. 9. 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. 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 RAJALAKS Digitally signed by HMI RAJALAKSHMI 10.11.2022 HARISH HARISH NAIR PK NAIR Date: 2022.11.18 17:51:01 +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