M/S. Union Bearings (India) Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 522 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the appellant's explanation is accepted as sufficient, in particular where the appellant only learned of the impugned order late, applied for a copy promptly on learning of it, and filed the appeal immediately after receiving the copy, and where the respondent does not dispute those facts. An order passed without affording the affected party an opportunity of hearing is liable to be quashed, and the matter remitted to the authority to decide afresh after hearing the party, in line with the Tribunal's earlier decision in Divine Multi Media (India) Ltd. v. BSE Ltd., where it was held that an opportunity of hearing is required.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 12.02.2021
Misc. Application No. 563 of 2019 And Appeal No. 522 of 2019
M/s. Union Bearings (India) Ltd. Mangal Murti, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380009. ..... Appellant
Versus
BSE Ltd. Floor 25, P. J. Towers, Dalal Street, Mumbai - 400 001. ... Respondent
Mr. Sharath Pai, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Tomu Francis, Advocate with Mr. Arka Saha, Advocate i/b Khaitan & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
The appellant has challenged the order dated June 26, 2018
by which the Delisting Committee of BSE Ltd. has compulsorily 2
delisted the company under Regulation 21 of Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations,
2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'Delisting Regulations'). There is a
delay of 451 days in the filing of the appeal. The ground urged is
that the appellant was never given an opportunity of hearing and the
order was never served upon them and that they only came to know
in August 2019 whereupon they applied for a copy of the order
which was received on August 28, 2019 and immediately thereafter
the present appeal was filed.
2. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the respondent.
Considering the aforesaid, the delay has been explained. Cause
shown is sufficient. The delay is condoned. The application is
allowed.
3. We find from the impugned order that no opportunity of
hearing was provided to the appellant before passing of the order. In
M/s. Divine Multi Media (India) Ltd. vs. BSE Ltd. Appeal No. 17 of
2019 decided on March 25, 2019, the Tribunal has held that an
opportunity of hearing is required to be given. Since the same has
not been given, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is
quashed. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the
Committee again to decide the matter afresh after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 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 RAJALAKS Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR
HMI H NAIR 10:43:10 +05'30' Date: 2021.02.15
Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 12.02.2021 PTM
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