Kulin Parikh vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.323 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The delay of 512 days in filing an appeal is not condoned where the applicant offers no meaningful or justifiable reason for the delay, and the appellant's substantial financial stake and sophistication weigh against leniency; absent condonation of delay, the appeal itself is infructuous and falls to be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 11.9.2018
Misc. Application No.264 of 2018 And Appeal No.323 of 2018
Kulin Parikh 9, Central lane, Bengali Market, .... Applicant/ New Delhi - 110001 Appellant
Versus
National Stock Exchange of India Limited Exchange Plaza, Plot No.C/1, G- Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent
Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Sachin Chandarana, Advocate with Ms. Shreya Anuwal, Advocate i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM: Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per : Dr. C.K.G. Nair (Oral)
1.
This appeal has been filed to challenge the letter of the National
Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSEIL) dated 10th February, 2017. By
the said letter claim of the Appellant to the tune of Rs.75 lakh against
Moongipa Investments Ltd. an expelled broker of NSEIL was rejected.
2. The Misc. Application No. 264 of 2018 filed by the
Applicant/Appellant seeks to condone a delay of 512 days in filing this
appeal. No meaningful ground has been given for such an inordinate delay
in filing the appeal, particularly when the claim of the Applicant/Appellant 2
is a big sum of Rs.75 lakh which means that the Applicant/Appellant is not
a small investor without having the necessary technical or financial
wherewithal.
3. It is on record that Moongipa Investments Ltd., the broker, was
expelled by NSEIL with effect from November 9, 2015 and a public notice
was issued by NSEIL on November 19, 2015 in leading newspapers
inviting claims against the said broker within three months. Further, it is on
record that the Applicant/Appellant filed a claim against the said broker
only on October 6, 2016 and that too through the SCORES system of SEBI.
Moreover, the supporting documents produced by the Applicant/Appellant
regarding Rs.75 lakh claim is only a statement supposed to be given by the
broker on 19.8.2014 to "Whomsoever it may concern", and signed by an
unnamed Director of Moongipa Investments Limited.
4. Further, Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant also admits that though
an amount of Rs.75 lac has been given to Moongipa Investments Ltd. as
margin funds no trading in securities has been done by the
Applicant/Appellant through the broker Moongipa Investments Ltd.
5. Given the above background and the fact that Applicant/Appellant is
unable to produce any justifiable reason for the delay in filing this appeal
belatedly after 512 days the Misc. Application is dismissed. Consequently,
the appeal becomes infructuous and is also dismissed with no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member
11.9.2018 Prepared and compared by RHN
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