Late Rajesh Jayantilal Savadia vs Sebi

Date of Decision: 12.1.2023

Misc. Application No.1642 of 2022 And Appeal No.43 of 2023

Late Rajesh Jayantilal Savadia (Through his legal heir Ms. Bhavana Rajesh Savadia) 10, Ashirwad, Opp. Guru Kripa, Vishabharti Society, Juhu Lane, B.H. Shri Ram School, Andheri West, Mumbai - 400058. ...Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, „G‟ Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent

Mr. Vikas Bengani, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Mr. Nishit Dhruva and Ms. Shefali Shankar, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member 2

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)

1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

31st August, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Officer

(hereinafter referred to as „AO‟) imposing a penalty of

Rs.7,50,000/-. The noticee Mr. Rajesh Jayantilal expired

on 5th September, 2022 and thereafter his widow has

filed the present appeal.

2. There is a delay of 1508 days in the filing of the

appeal. It was urged that the appellant was bedridden

and was suffering from a mental disease and, therefore,

could not file the appeal.

3. We find that the appellant had died of a heart attack

and nothing has been indicated to show as to why he

could not file the present appeal pursuant to the order of

the WTM.

4. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Supreme Court held that 3

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 4

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. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason

to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The

ground urged is not sufficient to condone the inordinate

delay. The application is rejected as a result of which the

appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. This order will be digitally signed by the Private

Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned 5

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

RAJALA Digitally signed KSHMI by RAJALAKSHMI

HARISH HARISH NAIR

12.1.2023 NAIR Date: 2023.01.20 10:08:25 +05'30'

RHN