Meeta Bipin Kumar Shah vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 14.01.2019

Misc. Application No. 410 of 2018 In Misc. Application No. 173 of 2018 And Appeal No. 208 of 2018

Meeta Bipin Kumar Shah 1/1, Nupur Apartment, Maninagar, Ahmedabad - 380 008. ..... Applicant

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. Prakash Shah, Advocate with Ms. Rinku Valanju, Advocate i/b R.V. Legal for the Applicant.

Mr. Aditya Mehta, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sukhramani, Advocate and Ms. Vidhi Jhawar, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)

Misc. Application No. 410 of 2018:-

1.

The application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal of the

applicant was rejected by an order dated June 29, 2018. An application for

recall of the said order has been filed by the applicant in Appeal No. 208 of

2018. Learned counsel for the applicant states that she was never served

with the notice from the Registry of this Tribunal. 2

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having

perused the record, we find that the notices were sent which came back

unserved.

3. In the light of the aforesaid, the order dated June 29, 2018 is recalled.

The recall application is allowed and the Misc. Application No. 173 of 2018

and the appeal are restored to its original number.

Misc. Application No. 173 of 2018:-

1. The appellant has filed an application for condoning the delay of 660

days in filing the appeal. The grounds for condoning the delay are depicted

in paragraph 3.2 of the application as under:-

(a) On receipt of the impugned Order, the Appellant was

diligently pursuing the matter with her legal advisors, to

prepare and file the present Appeal.

(b) The Appellant was unable to file the said appeal within the

permitted time frame because of the circumstance and non-

availability of required funds.

(c) The Appellant being a common person was not aware about

SEBI Rules and Regulations and in turn has to take guidance

from Friends and Relatives to prepare Appeal hence the delay.

(d) The Appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time of 45

days due to time taken by the Appellant to seek legal advice so

there has been an inordinate delay of filing the present appeal. 3

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that they

were diligently pursuing the matter with her legal advisors to prepare the

appeal. Further, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period on

account of non-availability of the required funds. It was also urged that the

appellant is a housewife and was not aware of the SEBI Rules and

Regulations. The appellant has consequently prayed that the entire delay of

660 days be condoned on payment of cost. In support of her submission the

appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No. 4649 of 2006 (Noted Infotech P. Ltd. vs. Securities & Exchange Board

of India decided on August 04, 2008) wherein the Supreme Court condoned

the delay of 720 days on payment of cost of Rs. 1 lakh. It was urged that in

similar circumstances the delay of 660 days should be condoned by this

Tribunal on payment of similar cost. The appellant also relied upon a

decision of the Supreme Court in Ummer vs. Pottengal Subinda, 2018 SCC

OnLine SC 199 on the proposition that the appellant is not required to

explain the delay of each day till the date of filing the appeal and that if

plausible grounds are indicated then that would be sufficient grounds for

condoning the delay. In addition to the aforesaid, the appellant has also

relied upon a decision in Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. vs.

Gobardhan Sao and Ors. (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 195 wherein the

Supreme Court 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 bonafides is imputable to a party.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that

there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and nothing has been

indicated as to why the appeal could not be filed earlier especially when the

appellant was taking legal advice. Further, no proof has been filed to 4

indicate that there was non-availability of requisite funds. The respondent

further contended that the appellant is not a housewife but is also Director in

two of the firms and therefore she is aware of the SEBI Rules and

Regulations and cannot be said to be in ignorance of the law. In support of

their contention, the respondent has relied upon a decision of the Supreme

Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors. (2010) 8

Supreme Court Cases 685 wherein the expression "sufficient cause" was

explained to imply the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The learned

counsel thus contended that legal and adequate reasons have not been

indicated in the instant case and that the grounds mentioned are patently

vague.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is

an inordinate delay of 660 days in filing the present appeal. By no stretch of

imagination it can be said that the appellant was pursuing the matter with

her legal advisor. In our opinion, such ground is patently misconceived and

an afterthought. Further, nothing has been indicated by the appellant with

regard to non-availability of requisite funds. Such allegations made are

patently vague without any evidence to support such statement. We also find

that the appellant has stated that she is housewife but we find from the

impugned order that she also is also a Director in two firms, namely, Parvati

Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and Pratik Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

5. We also find that appellant's husband Bipin Kumar Shah was a

Director and had filed Appeal No. 376 of 2017 which was dismissed along

with other connected appeals by judgment dated June 28, 2018 by this

Appellate Tribunal. We also find that six other appeals were also filed, the

leading appeal being Appeal No. 303 of 2016 which was dismissed by 5

common Judgment dated June 28, 2018. Review Application was filed

which was also rejected by an order dated December 19, 2018.

6. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that there has been

an inordinate delay of 660 days in filing the appeal. We do not find any

sufficient cause much less plausible cause shown by the appellant. The

grounds given are patently vague and do not imply the presence of legal and

adequate reasons. No doubt, the Tribunal is possessed with the exercise of

judicial discretion in condoning the delay if sufficient cause or adequate

reason is given. However, in the instant case, we find that while taking into

account the conduct of the appellant, no bonafide reasons have been given

in condoning the delay. It is the requirement of law that an application for

condoning the delay cannot be allowed as matter of right and even in a

routine manner on payment of cost especially in the absence of adequate and

legal reasons.

7. For the reasons stated aforesaid, Misc. Application for condonation

of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal does not survive and is also

dismissed.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 14.01.2019 Prepared and compared by:msb