Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Mr. Naidu Mohanbhai Naranbhai vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal19 June 2018J. P. Devadhar

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A party that has received an impugned order and does not challenge it within the limitation period cannot escape the delay merely by alleging that the order was passed without service of a show cause notice, since that ground did not prevent a timely appeal against an order admittedly served; and where the appellant initiated no challenge even after execution proceedings were commenced against it, an inordinate delay of several thousand days is not explained and does not warrant condonation under the statute governing appeals to the Securities Appellate Tribunal.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision: 19.6.2018

Misc. Application No.175 of 2018 And Appeal No.210 of 2018

Mr. Arvind Bhimji Makwana, 7/146, Muncipal Slum Quarters, Opp. Tirupati Estate, Saraspur, Ahemdabaad, At Gujarat. ..... Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4/A, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400 051. ... Respondent

With Misc. Application No.176 of 2018 And Appeal No.211 of 2018

Mr. Prajapati Ganeshbhai Punamchand, Hirabhai Martket, Diwaan Ballubhai Road, Ahemdabaad, Ahemdabaad- 380022, Gujarat, India. ..... Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4/A, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400 051. ... Respondent

With Misc. Application No.177 of 2018 And Appeal No.212 of 2018

Mr. Naidu Mohanbhai NaranBhai 2

74/1772, Gujarat Housing Board, Meghani Nagar, Ahemdabaad, Gujarat 380016. ..... Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4/A, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400 051. ... Respondent

Mr. Shahid Pathan, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody and Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral)

1.

By these three Miscellaneous Applications, each appellant seeks

condonation of 3,325 days delay in filing the respective appeal.

2. The three appeals are filed by the appellants to challenge three

orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) of Securities and

Exchange board of India ('SEBI' for short) all dated March 16, 2009. Each

appellant admits that in March/April, 2009 itself SEBI had communicated

the orders passed against the respective appellant.

3. In such a case, having received the impugned order in the year 2009

itself, appellants are not justified in filing the appeals after 9 years delay.

4. Argument that the impugned orders have been passed without

serving the show cause notice to the respective appellant is without any

merit, because, even if the impugned orders were passed without serving 3

the show cause notice, nothing prevented the appellants to challenge those

orders which were admittedly served in the year 2009. Moreover, it is not

in dispute that execution proceedings were initiated by SEBI against the

appellants in the year 2015. Inspite of initiation of the execution

proceedings in the year 2015, appellants have chosen to file appeals against

the impugned order belatedly in the year 2018.

5. In these circumstances, in our opinion appellants have not made out

a case for condoning the inordinate delay of 3,325 days in filing the

Appeals. Accordingly all the three Miscellaneous Applications are

dismissed.

6. In view of dismissal of the Misc. Applications, all three appeals filed

by the appellants do not survive and accordingly all three appeals are also

disposed of with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

19.6.2018 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