Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal is filed after the prescribed period, the appellate authority may condone the delay only on sufficient cause shown; sufficient cause means legal and adequate reasons, and it is not established where the appellant had the impugned order in hand, did not act on it, and filed only after other proceedings (attachment) prompted action. Absent sufficient cause, the appellate authority has no power to extend the limitation period on equitable grounds, and the limitation statute must be applied with full rigour; the appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed as time-barred.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision:19.11.2020Misc. Application No.409 of 2020AndMisc. Application No.410 of 2020AndAppeal No.415 of 20201.Mr. Partha Chakraborthi2. Mrs. Soma P. ChakrabortiAG-18, Salt Lake City,Kolkata - 700064. ...AppellantsVersusSecurities and Exchange Board of IndiaSEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051. ...RespondentMr. Dakshesh Vyas, Advocate with Mr. Supriyo RanjanSaha and Mr. Sumit Raghani, Advocates i/b. AgrudPartners, for the Appellants.Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b. The Law Point for theRespondent.CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding OfficerDr. C.K.G. Nair, MemberJustice M.T. Joshi, Judicial MemberPer : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)21. The appellants have filed the present appeal againstthe order dated 8th September, 2017 passed by theWhole Time Member directing the appellants to refundthe money jointly and severally collected through offerand allotment of shares of Chakra InfrastructureLimited (CIL) alongwith interest. There is a delay of1088 days in the filing of the appeal and, accordingly,an application for condonation of delay has been filed.2. It has been urged that the order was received on 11thJuly, 2019 and, thereafter, they took necessary stepswith the Company and were also watching certainproceedings which were pending in the Calcutta HighCourt.3. Further, after the attachment order was received inJuly, 2020 the appellant took steps for filing a reviewapplication before Securities and Exchange Board ofIndia which was dismissed on 14th September, 2020and, thereafter, the present appeal was filed. It wasurged that the appellants were pursuing other remedies3and there was no willful default in filing the presentappeal, hence the delay is liable to be condoned.4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties wefind that admittedly the appellants were pursuing theproceedings before the Whole Time Member and hadfiled a reply. The impugned order was served soonthereafter. Upon a request made by the appellantanother copy was received by them on 11th July, 2019.Even then no steps were taken by the appellant to filean appeal it is only when attachment proceedings wereinitiated that the appellants woke up and had tried tofile the present appeal. We find that no sufficientcause has been shown nor are there any legal groundsto condone this inordinate delay.5. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special LandAcquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 the SupremeCourt held that the discretion to condone the delay hasto be exercised judicially based on facts andcircumstances of each case and that sufficient cause4cannot be given a liberal interpretation if lack ofbonafide is attributed to a party. The Supreme Courtfurther held that delay cannot be condoned onequitable ground beyond the limits permitted expresslyby statute.6. The Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao alias RamNath Sahu and Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others(2002) 3 SCC 195 held that the expression "sufficientcause" should receive a liberal construction so as toadvance substantial justice when no negligence orinaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a party.The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court inMadanlal vs. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 SCC 535.7. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors,(2010) 8 SCC 685 Supreme Court held that theexpression "sufficient cause" means the presence oflegal and adequate reasons. The decisions cited by thelearned counsel for the appellant are of no avail and, in5any case, not applicable in the present circumstance ofthe case.8. This Tribunal is possessed with the exercise ofjudicial discretion in condoning the delay if sufficientor adequate reason is given. It is also a settledproposition of law that the law of limitation mayharshly affect a particular party but it has to be appliedwith all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. Thecourt has no power to extend the period of limitationon equitable grounds as held by the Supreme Court inBasawaraj and Anr. (supra). In the instant case we dofind any legal or adequate reasons to condone thedelay.9. For the reason stated aforesaid on account of theinordinate delay, the application for condonation ofdelay is rejected as a result of which the appeal is alsodismissed with no order as to costs. Misc. ApplicationNo.410 of 2020 is also disposed of accordingly.610. The present matter was heard through videoconference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage itis not possible to sign a copy of this order nor acertified copy of this order could be issued by theregistry. In these circumstances, this order will bedigitally signed by the Presiding Officer on behalf ofthe bench and all concerned parties are directed to acton the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties willact on production of a digitally signed copy sent by faxand/or email.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac2ab7954d50
AGARWAL 9c85ed6e0f7c41, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e7999727d404aa3 8ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.11.19 18:46:05 +05'30'
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member
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.
